Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
issue. Here, it is a question of a detailed depiction of the (cognitive) position from
which the author of an audiovisual text develops his subject. For instance, the author
can develop his subject from his own position, which he assumes as it is (he fulfills
his obligations both as author and enunciator). However, as we have just seen (see
first issue), he may also refer to another enunciator. In this latter case, the author's
attitude towards the other enunciator's views may vary greatly: from total agreement
to extreme opposition, including all the intermediary positions of neutrality,
reservation, (see the very instructive research of B.-N. Grunig and R. Grunig
[GRU 98] on this subject), etc. It may prove important to explicitly state the author's
position, e.g. in order to understand the
opposing points of view
on a given subject
or, in the context of an interview with a researcher, to differentiate the discourse of
the academic and the discourse of the combative character. Indeed, it is not
uncommon for the person or persons being interviewed to
change their position
several times during the same discussion or interview, to a more or less radical
extent and without concern for the overall consistency of their discourse.
Thus, for instance, in his role as an expert or specialist on a group or social
movement, the researcher can evolve, simultaneously: as an
autonomous subject
who has (or believes he has) knowledge
; as a
delegated
s
ubject of a higher instance
of truth
who draws his legitimacy as a scientist or as an expert from belonging to a
school of thought or subscribing to a scientific theory; as the
holder of convictions
who assumes the right to switch from a descriptive discourse to a moralizing
discourse; as an
empathic subject
who adopts the position of the group in order to
defend it or attack it; and so on.
3)
What is the type or genre of discourse used by the author to develop his
subject?
It is a question, here (as far as possible), of explicitly stating whether the
treatment and development of a subject in an audiovisual corpus takes place, e.g., in
the form of descriptions, narrations, explanations or indeed in the form of
exposés
,
testimonies, debates, lessons, ludic
mises-en-scène
, simulations, etc. Here, one must
determine the act which characterizes the discourse the author devotes to the subject.
This act may belong either to such-and-such a type of
elementary language act
identified and discussed in the field of linguistic pragmatics or discourse linguistics
[AUS 70; SEA 72], or to a more complex social and cultural genre of discourse or of
texts (see, e.g. [ADA 90; ADP 89; STO 01]).
In any case, it is important to take account of this third question, in that it enables
us to specify whether a concrete subject is developed in the guise of a narration, of a
reasoned
exposé
, in the form of a series of illustrative examples, or of a dialogical
interplay consisting of pedagogically-motivated questions and answers. We can
clearly see that the advantage - the added value - of a subject can be very heavily
influenced by the type or genre of discourse which “conveys” it: the genre of
discourse can mean it lends itself more readily to scientific or expert uses, or,
conversely, to educational uses.
