[This is part two of a three part series. Click here for part 1]

The second major part of the model is referred to as ENGAGEMENT. This has to do with the way people use language "to present themselves as recognizing, answering, ignoring, challenging, rejecting, fending off, anticipating or accommodating [people] and the value positions they represent" (Martin and White, *Language of Evaluation*, 2). At issue here is whether and to what extent the text is dialogic (opens "space" for and engages with other value positions) or monologic (doesn’t acknowledge other value positions).

**1 John 3:15a**

πᾶς ὁ μισῶν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωποκτόνος ἐστίν καὶ οἴδατε ὅτι πᾶς ἀνθρωποκτόνος οὐκ ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἐν αὐτῷ μένουσαν.

*Everyone who hates his/her brother or sister is a murderer and you know that eery murderer does not have eternal life abiding in him/her.*

This text is monoglossic; it’s a bare assertion that does not acknowledge any other point of view, such as a hating brother or sister *might* not make a person a murderer or that a murderer *might* have eternal life abiding in him. Instead, this text assumes as taken for granted that hating (fictive) kin is tantamount to murder and that murderers do not have eternal life.

Texts that assume a heteroglossic backdrop (i.e., assume or consider other voices/value positions) and that are dialogic (i.e., engage to some extent with those alternative points of view) will either expand dialogue or contract it. Doing either of these signals the writer’s stance toward the other value positions.

Let’s begin with expanding dialogue. This is done in two ways: by entertaining other value positions or by making attributions to them. Here’s an example of Entertain:

**Rom. 5:7**

μόλις γὰρ ὑπὲρ δικαίου τις ἀποθανεῖται · ὑπὲρ γὰρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ τάχα τις καὶ τολμᾷ ἀποθανεῖν ·

*Rarely will someone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly be brave enough to die.*

In this locution, the second clause, *though . . . someone might possibly be brave enough to die*, entertains a point of view that differs from the one encoded in the first clause. Entertain is signaled by *possibly* (τάχα). It’s also notable that the proposition in the second clause does not counter the proposition of the first clause; instead, it simply concedes that the proposition does not *always* maintain.

Attributions reference the voice/value positions of some external source. The most straightforward of these are direct quotations; in these cases, the writer lets the other speak for her-/himself and will then either acknowledge that value position or create distance from it. Other times, the writer might bring another proposition into play but in a way that doesn’t use a direct quotation.

**1 Cor 1:11**

ἐδηλώθη γάρ μοι περὶ ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί μου, ὑπὸ τῶν Χλόης ὅτι ἔριδες ἐν ὑμῖν εἰσιν.

*For it has been reported about you, my brothers and sisters, by some from Chloe, that quarrels exist among you.*

Here Paul brings a proposition into play via attribution (note the passive *it has been reported . . . by some from Chloe*). There isn’t a direct quotation involved, but clearly the point of view (a negative judgment, incidentally) of "some from Chloe" is loud and clear. This attribution expands dialogue by bringing it into the current communicative context so Paul can launch into his response.

**Contracting Dialogue**

ENGAGEMENT also describes resources for contracting dialogue by construing the writer’s voice as being opposed to, suppressing, or ruling out whatever alternative point of view/voice might be referenced in the text. This can be done by proclamation or disclamation. Proclamations include concurring (showing agreement and, thus, rendering moot any other points of view) and endorsing (construing a point of view as insuperable so that other points of view are disallowed). Disclamations include denying (explicitly rejecting an alternative point of view) and countering (invoking alternative points of view only to reject and supplant them with another view).

**1 Cor 2:6**

Σοφίαν δὲ λαλοῦμεν ἐν τοῖς τελείοις, σοφίαν δὲ οὐ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου τῶν καταργουμένων ·

*Now we speak wisdom among the mature, but [we do] not [speak the wisdom] of the social entrepreneurs of this age, who are becoming nothing/useless.*

Here we have a proposition in the first clause and a counter proposition in the second clause: *we speak . . . **but** we do not speak*. Moreover, the second clause is also a denial: *we do **not** speak…* Paul uses these engagement strategies to position his readers to take up the stance that (a) the message he proclaims is wise, but (b) not the same "wise" as that of the ailing social entrepreneurs of the world. And his message is better because people who are coming to nothing obviously don’t speak wisdom.