Article published In:
Language and Dialogue: Online-First Articles

Exploring dialogism in discourse

Doxa, interdiscourse, dialogic inversion and environmental issues

 | University of Ca’ Foscari
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 sustainable development, which belongs to the core lexicon of environmental policies and has been subject to different interpretations and evaluations; the neologism warmist, coined in opposition to denialist and conveying a context of contraposition between two incompatible viewpoints.
Keywords: doxa, interdiscourse, dialogic inversion, polemic discourse, sustainability, denialist, warmist
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1Dialogism and argumentation in discourse
    • 2.2Types of dialogism and interdiscourse
    • 2.3Dialogism in language
    • 2.4Dialogism and polemic discourse
  • 3.Environmental issues from politics to ideology
    • 3.1Sustainable development
    • 3.2Climate change: denialists vs warmists
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 January 2025
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00192.san
References (29)
References
Amossy, Ruth. 2005. “The Argumentative Dimension of Discourse.” In Practices of Argumentation, ed. by Frans van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. L’Argumentation dans le Discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1989. “Théorie de l’Argumentation, Topoï, et Structuration Discursive.” Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 18(1): 13–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antelmi, Donella. 2013. “Posizionamento Dialogico nell’Interdiscorso: Dialogismo Costitutivo e Inversione Dialogica.” In Dialogizität in der Argumentation, ed. by Daniela Pirazzini, and Anika Schieman, 33–52. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2018. Verdi Parole. Milano: Mimesis Edizioni.Google Scholar
Authier-Revuz, Jaqueline. 1984/2014. “Hétérogéneité(s) énonciative(s).” Langages 731: 98–11 (Reprint in The Discourse Studies Reader, ed. by Johannes Angermuller, Dominique Maingueneau, and Ruth Wodak. Amsterdam: John Benjamins).Google Scholar
. 1995. Ces mots que ne vont pas de soi. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1959 [1971]. “La Relation de Temps dans le Verbe Français.” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique LIV/11 [English translation in: Id. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics, 205–216. Miami: University of Miami Press].Google Scholar
Bres, Jaques, and Alexandra Nowakowska. 2006. “Dialogisme: du Principe à la Matérialité Discursive.” In Le Sens et le Voix. Dialogisme et Poliphonie en Langue et en Discours, ed. by Laurent Perrin, 21–48. Metz: Université de Metz.Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana. 2012. “Dialogism in Arbitration Awards: Focus on Concessive Constructions.” In Arbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realizations, ed. by Vijay Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone, and Chiara Degano, 67–90. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
. 1997. “On the Grammar of Scientific English.” In Grammatica. Studi Interlinguistici, ed. by Carol Taylor Torsello, 21–38. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1968. “Le Texte Clos.” Langages 121: 103–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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). [[URL], last accessed July 15, 2024]
Paveau, Marianne. 2006. Les Prédiscours: Sens, Mémoire, Cognition. Paris: Presse Sorbonne Nouvelle. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958 [1969]. Traité de l’Argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France [English translation by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame (Ind.): University of Notre Dame Press].Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 1996. L’Argumentation. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Prandi, Michele. 2004. The Building Blocks of Meaning. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rist, Gilbert. 2010. “Development as a buzzword.” In Deconstructing Development Discourse. Buzzwords and fuzzwords, ed. by Andrea Cornwall, and Deborah Eade, 19–27. Oxford: Oxfam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santulli, Francesca, and Chiara Degano. 2022. Agreement in Argumentation. A Discursive Perspective. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santulli, Francesca. 2013. “Le Voci degli Altri e l’Immagine di Sé: Dialogismo, Persuasione, Ethos.” In Dialogizität in der Argumentation, ed. by Daniela Pirazzini, and Anika Schieman, 230–250. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sperber, Deirdre, and Dan Wilson. 1978. “Les Ironies Comme Mentions.” Poètique 321: 399–412.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Rees, Agnes. 2005. “Indicators of Dissociation.” In Argumentation in Practice, ed. by Frans van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 53–68. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Dissociation in Argumentative Discussions. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2018. “Dialogue. The Key to Pragmatics.” In From Pragmatics to Dialogue, ed. by Edda Weigand, and Istvan Kecskes, 5–28. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar