Page 376 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 376
What Do We Know about the World?
In line with fundamental pragmatic approaches to verbal communi-
cation (cf. Clark 1996: 14–15), the identification of the stakeholders
of a text can be refined by taking into consideration the description
of the roles of the participants to communication elaborated by Goff-
man (1979). In his work on footing, the Canadian sociologist observed
that “[w]hen one uses the term ‘speaker’, one often implies that the in-
dividual who animates is formulating his own text and staking out his
own position through it” (Goffman, 1979: 145). However, in commu-
nication, situations in which the individual who animates the text is
different from the one who formulates it and from the one who stakes
his own position through it are very frequent. “Plainly, reciting a fully
memorized text or reading aloud from a prepared script allows us to an-
imate words we had no hand in formulating, and to express opinions,
beliefs, and sentiments we do not hold. We can openly speak for some-
one else and in someone else’s words, as we do, say, in reading a depo-
sition or providing a simultaneous translation of a speech – the latter
an interesting example because so often the original speaker’s words,
although ones that person commits himself to, are ones that someone
else wrote for him” (Goffman, 1979: 145–146). In other words, Goff-
man pointed out that behind the word “speaker” three different roles
are hidden: the animator (“an individual active in the role of utterance
production”; 1979: 144), the author (“someone who has selected the
sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they are
encoded”; 1979: 144) and the principal (“Someone whose position is
established by the words that are spoken, someone whose beliefs have
been told, someone who is committed to what the words say”; 1979:
144). This is, as Atkin and Richardson (2005: 166) already noticed, pre-
cisely in respect to advertising, a very relevant distinction that provides
a deeper insight about the participants in the communication. Simi-
larly, Goffman observed that behind the term “hearer” three different
roles have to be distinguished: the addressee (the person/s to whom
the utterance is addressed; McCawley, 1999: 596; cf. Goffman, 1979:
131–133),5 the ratified participant (the person/s who hold/s an “official
status as a ratified participant in the encounter”; Goffman, 1979: 131;
McCawley, 1999: 596) and the overhearer/bystander (the person/s who
follow/s the talk unintentionally and inadvertently or surreptitiously;
Goffmann, 1979: 131–132; McCawley, 1999: 596). Thus, “[t]heratified
5 For the description of Goffman’s roles we refer, besides Goffman’s original text, to the same model
recovered by McCawley 1999.
In line with fundamental pragmatic approaches to verbal communi-
cation (cf. Clark 1996: 14–15), the identification of the stakeholders
of a text can be refined by taking into consideration the description
of the roles of the participants to communication elaborated by Goff-
man (1979). In his work on footing, the Canadian sociologist observed
that “[w]hen one uses the term ‘speaker’, one often implies that the in-
dividual who animates is formulating his own text and staking out his
own position through it” (Goffman, 1979: 145). However, in commu-
nication, situations in which the individual who animates the text is
different from the one who formulates it and from the one who stakes
his own position through it are very frequent. “Plainly, reciting a fully
memorized text or reading aloud from a prepared script allows us to an-
imate words we had no hand in formulating, and to express opinions,
beliefs, and sentiments we do not hold. We can openly speak for some-
one else and in someone else’s words, as we do, say, in reading a depo-
sition or providing a simultaneous translation of a speech – the latter
an interesting example because so often the original speaker’s words,
although ones that person commits himself to, are ones that someone
else wrote for him” (Goffman, 1979: 145–146). In other words, Goff-
man pointed out that behind the word “speaker” three different roles
are hidden: the animator (“an individual active in the role of utterance
production”; 1979: 144), the author (“someone who has selected the
sentiments that are being expressed and the words in which they are
encoded”; 1979: 144) and the principal (“Someone whose position is
established by the words that are spoken, someone whose beliefs have
been told, someone who is committed to what the words say”; 1979:
144). This is, as Atkin and Richardson (2005: 166) already noticed, pre-
cisely in respect to advertising, a very relevant distinction that provides
a deeper insight about the participants in the communication. Simi-
larly, Goffman observed that behind the term “hearer” three different
roles have to be distinguished: the addressee (the person/s to whom
the utterance is addressed; McCawley, 1999: 596; cf. Goffman, 1979:
131–133),5 the ratified participant (the person/s who hold/s an “official
status as a ratified participant in the encounter”; Goffman, 1979: 131;
McCawley, 1999: 596) and the overhearer/bystander (the person/s who
follow/s the talk unintentionally and inadvertently or surreptitiously;
Goffmann, 1979: 131–132; McCawley, 1999: 596). Thus, “[t]heratified
5 For the description of Goffman’s roles we refer, besides Goffman’s original text, to the same model
recovered by McCawley 1999.
