The Use of Dialogical Strategies to Construct Credibility in Narratives of Contested Illnesses.

Abstract

This paper is a discourse analysis based on three illness narratives, known as autopathographies/memoirs, selected from a larger study. The memoirs were written in English by patients who suffered from contested illnesses. The memoirists report that as patients, they have encountered skepticism from their doctors regarding the doctorability of their conditions. Drawing on the theory of dialogism, the theory of memoirs, narrative analysis, and evaluation in linguistics, this paper argues that these memoirists answer their doctors, among other addressees, to vindicate themselves. They covertly claim that (a) their visceral authority is right and (b) their illness narratives are credible and real rather than imaginary. The close reading technique is used to analyze the memoirists' use of devices in the orientation section of the memoirs. Direct evidentials, combined with the mirative stance and deferred realization, are observed as firsthand sources of information. More specifically, prolepsis, ventriloquism, quotative evidential, and intertextuality are observed as secondhand sources of information. Whereas the devices associated with the firsthand sources of information enhance the subjective stance of the visceral authority as inalienable, the devices associated with the secondhand sources vouch for credibility by providing an objective source of information. In constructing credibility, these memoirs contribute to normalizing contested illnesses.