212 Eddy Roulet
As can be seen from this brief presentation, Bakhtin’s seminal work leads to new approaches to the study of multi-voiced discourse and sketches insightful analyses, mainly devoted to literary examples, but it does not propose any systematic description of external or internal dialogic structures. In fact, Bakhtin, like Saussure, is foremost a visionary, i.e. a scholar who is able to radically modify our conception of language, to raise new problems and to create new fundamental concepts. Among the latter are dialogism and polyphony, which occupy a major place in present research on verbal interaction and discourse. Bakhtin is more interested in speculative reflexions on discourse in the novel than in the empirical description of everyday, face-to-face interaction. But his numerous and rich insights in the notions of dialogism and polyphony have deeply influenced research on discourse, mainly in the fields of dialogue analysis (see Roulet et al. 1985), critical discourse analysis (see Fairclough 1992) and the theory of literary discourse (see Fowler 1981).
3. Polyphony in Ducrot’s work
Ducrot, following Bakhtin, rejects the postulate of the unicity of the speaking subject which is dominating the language sciences, but he affirms that Bakhtin has worked only on the polyphony of discourse and that one has to go beyond his approach in order to describe the polyphony of utterances (Ducrot 1984: 171). In fact, as we have seen above, Bakhtin did work on the polyphony of utterances, but he does not go as far as Ducrot toward a systematic description. We will here succinctly present Ducrot’s polyphonic theory of enunciation (Ducrot 1984). It is important to specify that, beyond their common interest in polyphony, the two linguists work within two very different frames, the sociology of verbal interaction for Bakhtin and what he calls ‘ideal discourse structuralism’ for Ducrot (229).
Ducrot’s first objective is to analyze, in the framework of an instructional conception of meaning, how an utterance indicates the superposition of different voices. He shows that it is necessary to distinguish the following entities:
a.the speaking subject, i.e. an empirical being who is the physical agent of the utterance;
b.the speaker, i.e. a discourse being, who can say I and who is the author of the illocutionary acts; Ducrot makes an additional distinction between the speaker as such and the speaker as referent (or human being) (199); see the difference between the first and the second I in the following utterance:
(4)I do assure you that I didn’t make any error;
c.the enunciator, i.e. a discourse being corresponding to a certain point of view which has not necessarily been expressed by a speaker (193).
Polyphony 213
According to Ducrot, the meaning of an utterance can enact two distinct speakers as such, which may be identified by traces like I and me and which may be subordinated to each other. In the following example:
(5)Paul told me: “I am sick”.
we can identify one speaking subject and two speakers, at two different levels, with the speaker of the whole utterance as main and actual speaker.
The meaning of an utterance can also enact enunciators, expressing different points of views which are not attributed to speakers. In the following examples:
(6)It is sunny this morning, but it is very windy.
(7)(uttered in a situation of evident failure) What a triumph!
there is one speaking subject and one speaker, who echoes voices of one or two enunciators (i.e. points of view which are not attributed to any speaker). The speaker can manifest his own position by identifying himself or not to one of the enunciators (205). In (6) the speaker evokes two points of view characterized by but as argumentatively opposite, and he tends to identify himself to the second one, if we take into consideration another instruction given by but. In example (7), the speaker echoes a point of view which he manifestly does not assume. In other words, the speaker can assume responsibility for his utterance, without necessarily assuming responsibility for the attitudes it expresses (208).
Ducrot applies his conception of polyphony to various pragmatic problems, such as irony, negation and negative polarity, some uses of discourse markers, and presupposition.
a.irony
According to Ducrot, “to speak ironically is, for a speaker S, to present an utterance as expressing the position of an enunciator E, a position that the speaker cannot assume and which he considers as absurd” (211). See example (7) above. The enunciator E may be identified with the addressee, in which case we have a kind of aggressive irony (211).
b.negation and negative polarity
According to Ducrot, most negative utterances express a clash between two opposite attitudes, one, positive, attributed to an enunciator E1, the other, negative, attributed to an enunciator E2 to which the speaker identifies himself (215). Ducrot bases his hypothesis on the observation of the following facts. First, the use of the French connective au contraire (‘on the contrary’). If one looks at the following example.
214 Eddy Roulet
(8)Paul is not hard working; on the contrary, he is lazy.
the only opposition is not between “not hard working” and “lazy”, but between “hard working” and “lazy”, which, for Ducrot, is a clear indication of the presence of the positive attitude in the negative utterance (216). Second, cases of negative polarity, as in the use of French connective pour autant, which is different from the use of its near synonym pourtant (‘yet’), as can be seen, in the following examples:
(9)Paul est grand; pourtant, il n’est pas fort (Paul is big; yet, he is not strong).
(10)Paul est grand, pourtant, il est faible (Paul is big; yet, he is weak).
(11)Paul est grand; il n’est pas fort pour autant.
(12)*Paul est grand; il est faible pour autant.
For Ducrot, expressions with negative polarity, like pour autant, are characterized by the fact that they imply the rejection of a positive attitude, and thus require the use of an explicit negation (219–220).
c.different uses of discourse markers
Ducrot explains the different uses of discourse markers like mais (‘but’) by showing that they relate utterances which are attributed to distinct enunciators, which may be assimilated in different ways to the speaker, the addressee, or to other points of views (229–230).
Thus, he hypothesizes that utterances constructed with mais enact two successive enunciators E1 and E2, who argue in opposite directions, and that the different uses of those constructions, as illustrated in the following examples, depend on the assimilation of those enunciators with different persons:
(13)[Paul wonders if he should go out for a walk and says:]
It is sunny, but very windy.
In this case, the speaker identifies himself successively with E1 and E2.
(14)Mary: Let’s go out for a walk. It is sunny.
Paul: It is sunny, but very windy.
In this case, the speaker assimilates E1 to the addressee and identifies himself with E2.
(15)Mary: — Let’s go out for a walk.
Paul: — It is sunny but very windy.
Polyphony 215
The answer may have two different interpretations. Either the speaker assimilates E1 to the addressee and thus attributes to him a point of view he did not express, or, as in example (13), he identifies himself successively to E1 and E2.
d. presupposition
The notion of polyphony also allows Ducrot to explain in a simpler way instances of presupposition which he had already described in earlier work. He would explain a classical example like.
(16)Pierre has ceased smoking.
by saying that this utterance enacts two enunciators E1 and E2 who are respectively responsible for what is presupposed (Pierre used to smoke) and what is asserted (He does not smoke), and that the speaker identifies himself with E2 whereas E1 would be the expression of a collective voice (231).
Ducrot’s proposals have made the concept of polyphony more precise and enlarged the range of linguistic and discursive problems to which it may be applied, but the French linguist is working more on enunciation than on dialogue and, like Bakhtin, he is not primarily interested in the empirical description of everyday discourse. So his contribution has to be reexamined in the light of present researches in dialogue analysis and critical discourse analysis.
4. The description of the polyphonic organization of discourse
It is premature to give a systematic description of the polyphonic organization of discourse, which is very complex and which interferes with many other more or less well-known dimensions, like the social, interactional, topical, hierarchical and relational dimensions, as we will see later. But it is possible, if we refer to Bakhtin’s and Ducrot’s work and if we take into account the contribution of recent research in dialogue analysis and critical discourse analysis, to sketch the more important features of this organization (in what follows, I will not be dealing with the kind of multi-voiced discourse which is characterized by a direct exchange structure between two speakers; it belongs to dialogism in the narrow sense of the term, not to polyphony; see Roulet et al. 1985).
As it is difficult to render words like énonciateur et énonciation in English, I will restrict the technical vocabulary to the minimum in this presentation. In other words, I will keep to the notions of speaker (and addressee), and voice (a voice may transmit the discourse of any speaker or express a point of view which is not related to a specific speaker).
216 Eddy Roulet
Any description of the polyphonic organization of discourse should take into account at least the ten following points:
a.the discourse, or even a single utterance, of a speaker can enact different voices, corresponding to different discourses or points of view: the actual discourse of the speaker, past or future discourses of the speaker, of the addressee, or of other people, and points of view not related to specific speakers;
b.one has to distinguish the voices which are verbally manifested in the discourse of the speaker from those which are implicit. See the difference, in the following example, between two possible reactions to a proposal:
(17)– Let’s go out for a walk. It is sunny.
a.– It is sunny, but very windy.
b.– But it is very windy.
In (a) before expressing his own voice, the speaker echoes the voice of the addressee, whereas in (b) he just refers implicitly to it by the use of but (according to the instructions given by this discourse marker); discourse markers, when they open a move, play a very important, and usually neglected, role in the implicit reference to other’s discourse;
c.among the voices which are manifested verbally in the speaker’s discourse, one has to distinguish between the one which is presently produced (the present voice of the speaker), and those which are only an echo of other discourses or points of view (including past discourses and points of view of the speaker). If we consider the answer (a) in example (17) above, we can analyze the discourse of the speaker in two segments bearing two voices: the first segment is an echo of the addressee’s voice, the second produces the present voice of the speaker;
d.one has to distinguish two different ways to echo other discourses or points of view: the speaker can reproduce or express them, as in the preceding examples, or he can just point at them, as in the following examples:
(18)Your protest has been duly registered.
e.it is generally possible to analyze the discourse of the speaker in segments corresponding to distinct verbally manifested voices at different levels of polyphonic embedding; for instance, the following utterance can be analyzed this way (each segment is delimited by square brackets and the voice is indicated in front of it in bold types: S = speaker, A = addressee, etc.):
(19)S[Paul has written to me that P[Maria had told him that M[she was ill]]]
(20)S[You say that A[it is a bad paper], I think it is excellent]
As noted above, we have to make a distinction between the present voice (S) and past voices (S′) of the speaker, as in the following example:
Polyphony 217
(21)S[I have told you yesterday that S′[I was ill]]
As Bakhtin has shown in his work on quasi direct discourse, it is not always possible to delimit precisely the borders betweeen segments belonging to different voices. Consequently, we must admit the possibility of different segmentations, corresponding to different interpretations, for the same discourse, or even of a complete superposition of the two voices. Thus, the following utterance.
(22)Max has told me that he unfortunately did not pass his exam. may be segmented in two different ways:
S[Max has told me that M[he unfortunately did not pass his exam] S[Max has told me that M[he] unfortunately M[did not pass his exam]
In the first case, the adverb expresses Max’s point of view, in the second, it is a commentary by the speaker.
f.as far as the source of the voice is concerned, it is not enough to distinguish the speaker’s present voice from other voices. Bakhtin shows clearly that it is also important to make a distinction between the report of the voice of the present addressee and the report of any other voice, as they do not play the same role in discourse. For the speaker, to reproduce the discourse of his partner, who may then react to it, is a part of the actual interaction between them; that is not the case for the report of the discourse of persons who do not participate in the interaction, which is just an object of reference among others. That is the reason why we have introduced in Roulet et al. (1985: 69–84) a distinction, that has been widely used since, between diaphony, which refers to the (re)production of the voice of the addressee, and polyphony (in a restricted sense), which refers to the (re)production of any other voices. In the case of diaphony, it is useful to make an additional distinction between immediate and differed reproductions of the addressee’s discourse, which may have different functions, as we will see later.
g.In addition to the distinction between verbalized and implicit voices mentioned above, one has to make a distinction between actual and potential voices, if they are marked in the discourse. See the difference between
(23)You said that I am negligent, but I can’t accept this accusation.
(24)You are probably going to say that I am negligent, but I can’t accept this accusation.
In the first case, where the speaker refers to an actual discourse of the addressee, we speak of effective diaphony; in the second case, where the speaker refers to a potential discourse from his addressee, we speak of potential diaphony (one can make an analogous distinction between effective and potential polyphony).