1887
image of Exploring dialogism in discourse
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The notion of dialogism has been widely explored in both discourse and argumentation studies. Through a combination of these two approaches, dialogism reveals its crucial role as a strategy functional to the positioning of the arguer, determined in contrast with the adversary. The paper investigates this aspect of dialogism, starting from the assumption that both dialogicity and argumentation are pervasive in discourse, and exploring the notion of interdiscourse. The discussion then focuses on polemic discourse, characterized by the impossibility of constructing a common ground, and on dialogic inversion as a strategy entailing the reinterpretation in one’s own terms of concepts and values typical of the adversary. The theoretical points are applied to the analysis of two different examples concerning typical issues of environmental discourse: the formula , which belongs to the core lexicon of environmental policies and has been subject to different interpretations and evaluations; the neologism , coined in opposition to and conveying a context of contraposition between two incompatible viewpoints.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00192.san
2025-01-06
2025-01-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amossy, Ruth
    2005 “The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse.” InPractices of Argumentation, ed. byFrans van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, –. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.08amo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.08amo [Google Scholar]
  2. 2006L’Argumentation dans le Discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre, Jean-Claude
    1989 “Théorie de l’Argumentation, Topoï, et Structuration Discursive.” Revue Québécoise de Linguistique(): –. 10.7202/602639ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/602639ar [Google Scholar]
  4. Antelmi, Donella
    2013 “Posizionamento Dialogico nell’Interdiscorso: Dialogismo Costitutivo e Inversione Dialogica.” InDialogizität in der Argumentation, ed. byDaniela Pirazzini, and Anika Schieman, –. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2018Verdi Parole. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Authier-Revuz, Jaqueline
    1984/2014 “Hétérogéneité(s) énonciative(s).” Langages: – (Reprint inThe Discourse Studies Reader, ed. byJohannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau, and Ruth Wodak. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 1995Ces mots que ne vont pas de soi. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Benveniste, Émile
    1959 [1971] “La Relation de Temps dans le Verbe Français.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique [English translation in: Id. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics, –. Miami: University of Miami Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bres, Jaques, and Alexandra Nowakowska
    2006 “Dialogisme: du Principe à la Matérialité Discursive.” InLe Sens et le Voix. Dialogisme et Poliphonie en Langue et en Discours, ed. byLaurent Perrin, –. Metz: Université de Metz.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Ducrot, Oswald
    1972Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fairclough, Norman
    1992Discourse and Social Change. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garzone, Giuliana
    2012 “Dialogism in Arbitration Awards: Focus on Concessive Constructions.” InArbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realizations, ed. byVijay Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone, and Chiara Degano, –. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Halliday, Michael
    1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1997 “On the Grammar of Scientific English.” InGrammatica. Studi Interlinguistici, ed. byCarol Taylor Torsello, –. Padova: Unipress.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Kristeva, Julia
    1968 “Le Texte Clos.” Langages: –. 10.3406/lgge.1968.2356
    https://doi.org/10.3406/lgge.1968.2356 [Google Scholar]
  16. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Moirand, Sophie
    2011 “Discours sur la Science et Positionnement Idéologique. Retour sur les Notions de Formation Discursive et de Mémoire Discursive.” (version française du texte traduit et publié au Brésil). [https://univ-sorbonne-nouvelle.hal.science/hal-01504115, last accessedJuly 15, 2024]
  18. Paveau, Marianne
    2006Les Prédiscours: Sens, Mémoire, Cognition. Paris: Presse Sorbonne Nouvelle. 10.4000/books.psn.722
    https://doi.org/10.4000/books.psn.722 [Google Scholar]
  19. Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1958 [1969]Traité de l’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France [English translation byJ. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame (Ind.): University of Notre Dame Press].
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Plantin, Christian
    1996L’Argumentation. Paris: PUF.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Prandi, Michele
    2004The Building Blocks of Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.13
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.13 [Google Scholar]
  22. Rist, Gilbert
    2010 “Development as a buzzword.” InDeconstructing Development Discourse. Buzzwords and fuzzwords, ed. byAndrea Cornwall, and Deborah Eade, –. Oxford: Oxfam. 10.3362/9781780440095.002
    https://doi.org/10.3362/9781780440095.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Santulli, Francesca, and Chiara Degano
    2022Agreement in Argumentation. A Discursive Perspective. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑031‑16293‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-16293-0 [Google Scholar]
  24. Santulli, Francesca
    2013 “Le Voci degli Altri e l’Immagine di Sé: Dialogismo, Persuasione, Ethos.” InDialogizität in der Argumentation, ed. byDaniela Pirazzini, and Anika Schieman, –. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sperber, Deirdre, and Dan Wilson
    1978 “Les Ironies Comme Mentions.” Poètique: –.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. van Eemeren, Frans, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    1996Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. van Rees, Agnes
    2005 “Indicators of Dissociation.” InArgumentation in Practice, ed. byFrans van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.06ree
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.06ree [Google Scholar]
  28. 2009Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9150‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9150-6 [Google Scholar]
  29. Weigand, Edda
    2018 “Dialogue. The Key to Pragmatics.” InFrom Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. byEdda Weigand, and Istvan Kecskes, –. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.31.02wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.31.02wei [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00192.san
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: warmist ; doxa ; polemic discourse ; interdiscourse ; denialist ; sustainability ; dialogic inversion
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error