Pragmemes and modes of presentation (on professors, teachers, cardinals and popes)

6. Modes of presentation and the church
I would like to move towards the end of this paper with two further interesting examples. During the funeral of ‘Giovanni Paolo II’ in April 2005, Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to deliver the sermon at the funeral. Cardinal Ratzinger could have been referred to through more than one mode of presentation (for example, Mr Ratzinger, Dr Ratzinger, Professor Ratzinger). Yet, only one mode of presentation was chosen, and that was the one which best adapted to the function he was carrying out. In the context of the funeral he was acting as cardinal, not as a professor of theology or as an ordinary citizen.

Another interesting fact, about this event, is that the Pope, having died, was more frequently referred to as ‘Giovanni Paolo II”, perhaps an indication that he had ceased to carry out the function of Pope. But this brings us to the issue of what kind of mode of presentation we should use when we are referring to people who have died (and what are we referring to when we use their names?).

In a paper on presupposition (Capone 2002), I claimed that a person who has died, still provides a referent one can freely talk about, as the person has died (in the body), but not in the soul. We Christians firmly believe that the soul survives after death. Now, I hope we shall not have two types of linguistics, one for atheists and one for Christians. What is uncontroversial is that when we refer to people who have died, we may go on to talk about them as if they were still alive (“Dad is looking at us from Heaven”). Alternatively, we may refer to a bundle of memories. Well, in Italy there are conventions for referring to people who have died. We may use words such as ‘Il buon anima”. Habits of this kind are not infrequent, as in the English language too we can find expressions such as ‘the late Reverend John Muhlolland’.


7. An example from court proceedings.
In recent broadcast news, we have witnessed (part of) the trial of the Brigate Rosse involved in the assassination of D’Antona. His wife, called as a witness to the proceedings, was asked to identify herself and said: I am X,Y, the widow of Mr D’Antona. Why was this mode of presentation chosen? Presumably the reason is that her testimony bears on the proceedings only in so far as she is the widow of Mr D’Antona, who was assassinated by the defendants. Her testimony is going to be about the last days of Mr D’ Antona’s life. The mode of presentation she (spontaneously) chooses for herself is related to the actions at stake in the proceedings.