|
3. Modes of presentation in institutional contexts
Now it is time to consider a different case. I have known Professor Godones for many years, having written to him and asked for his advice as an academic mentor. He was professor of Linguistics at the University of Messina and then at the University of Venezia. In 2004 he became the head of the Faculty of Modern Languages in Venezia. I happened to visit him, on the occasion of a competition for a position as associate professor. I talked with his secretary. There were two competing ways I could use in referring to him. On the one hand, I could use ‘Professor Godones’ (a title combined with his surname), on the other hand I could use “the head of the faculty”. There is no question that his secretary is able to recognize him through both modes of presentation (or names), given her memory of past events in which she was acquainted with him (only) as Professor Godones. So choosing one or the other (preferring one to the other) is not a matter of going for a greater or less amount of informativeness, but is strictly a matter of obeying certain rules of conduct that are socially determined. The situation is even more complicated, given the fact that Professor Godones continued with his didactic activities (despite being head of the faculty), and thus continued to lecture and to examine students, in addition to performing his function as head of the faculty.
I believe that during exams or lectures students should continue to address him as “Professor Godones” because he interacts with them in this capacity; however, if they meet him in his ‘presidenza’ (his office as head of faculty), wanting to discuss matters that require him in his capacity as head of the faculty, they should address him as “Preside”, which is the way a head of Faculty is called in Italian.
Now, what about me, who meet him in his office, and nevertheless remember him as a Professor of linguistics and want to talk about linguistic matters? Should I address him as “Preside” or as “Professore”? Presumably I do not go to him to discuss matters about his faculty, but just linguistic matters or matters that are connected with other faculties. Thus, I think I could correctly choose the mode of presentation “Professore”. If I chose the alternative mode of presentation, I would qualify my talk in a certain way, in other words I would invoke a different topical trajectory. Now, this is a very interesting finding, because I have argued elsewhere (in my paper entitled “Alina’s cake”) that the topical trajectory can qualify certain slots in such a way that actions occurring in them automatically receive a certain qualification (in other words certain transformations are effected). So, on the one hand the trajectory can affect the way an action is interpreted (the way a certain pragmeme is interpreted), on the other hand the use of a certain linguistic expression (in this case of a mode of presentation) in a certain situation of use can affect the topical trajectory and predict what the conversation is going to be about.
I believe we have an important consideration to offer. Modes of presentation are not arbitrarily chosen, but are conventionally chosen. We can represent such conventions in such a way:
Suppose you can refer to X through modes of presentation MoP1, MoP2, MoP3, MoPn. Then you can choose between these modes of presentation in referring to X and the choice is determined by the context of interaction. If you interact with X in his capacity as MoP1, then choose MoP1 as a way of addressing him/her or of referring to him/her.
I believe we must already grapple with a difficulty that arises out of the rule above. We may distinguish between referring to X, when speaking to Y about X, and addressing X, when speaking to X. In both cases, we are referring to X (thus we may be tempted to conflate the two cases). However, before deciding whether we should conflate the two cases, it is reasonable to inquire whether the two contexts C1(referring to X, while speaking to Y about X) and C2(addressing X, while speaking to X) in principle require systematic uses of distinct modes of presentation. It may be thought that in context 2 it may be mandatory to use the mode of presentation (going back to the previous situation) “Preside”. But this is a rash intuition. After all could not the head of the faculty give a friend of his permission to call him “Vincenzo”? At this point we may be tempted to conclude that the rule is stricter in context C1; but this need not be the case. Suppose that the head’s secretary knows that I am a friend of the head, and furthermore I know that she also calls him “Vincenzo”. Then I could say “Dov’è Vincenzo?” (Where is Vincenzo?), relying on her to understand that I am referring to the head of the faculty and to accept my mode of presentation in virtue of the fact that the head of the faculty gave me permission to use that mode of presentation.
So, the picture we are starting to put together is a messy one. On the one hand, we have contextual rules that determine which mode of presentation should be chosen, in case one can choose from alternative ones; on the other hand within each context, an individual who has got the power to do so, can give other people permission to use a certain (more familiar) mode of presentation. Yet, I think that this rule within the rule cannot obtain if we are at formal meetings or at least at formal ceremonies. So, at least in principle we have to admit that the context leaves no option for the participants in a ritual, but to choose a mode of presentation which is prescribed in that context.
Going back to the question whether we should distinguish between a context C1(referring to X while talking with Y) and a context C2 (addressing X, while talking with X) in connection with the issue of choice of mode of presentation, for the time being we have no elements that compel us to make this distinction, but we are open to the possibility that the distinction may be semiotically active.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
