Abstract

In this article, I examine the heteroglossic and monoglossic functioning of some linguistic resources used in Chilean textbooks for building a historical explanation of the 1973 coup d'état in Chile. The textbooks' authors, when they include their voices in the discourse and construct an ideological solidarity with their readers, have access to both linguistic resources of intra and extra vocalization (White, 2000) and less open alternative or monological positions. These resources are analyzed from the Appraisal theory (White, 2000, 2003; Martin & White, 2005) and the notion of voice for the historical discourse (Martin, 2000, 2003; Coffin, 2002, 2006) along with the distinction between manipulation and persuasion (van Dijk, 2006). The analysis particularly focuses on the evaluation of the heteroglossic functioning of modulation (meanings of obligation). I suggest that these meanings are inclined towards a monoglossic stance, because it seems that the obligation constructions through modal verbs are the least dialogic forms available to authors of this type of discourse, an option that is necessarily constructed in combination with other linguistic resources, such as declarative clauses and negative polarity.