1887
Volume 21, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

This paper seeks to specify the strategic function of adverbs like and when used to qualify the utterance that functions as a standpoint in an argumentative discussion. The aim is to provide a description of their strategic function that takes into consideration the role that the move of advancing a standpoint plays in argumentative discourse. To this direction, the choice of qualifying is explained as a choice that the arguer makes in his attempt to manage the burden of proof that is incurred when advancing a standpoint. By combining the insights from the pragma-linguistic treatment of these adverbs with the theoretical premises of a systematic approach to the analysis of argumentative discourse it becomes possible to specify their strategic function and to evaluate those cases in which this strategic function has been abused to the detriment of the quality of argumentative discourse.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.3.09tse
2011-01-01
2018-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K
    (2002) English Discourse Particles. Evidence From a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/scl.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K. , and A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen
    (2004) A model and a methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1781-1805. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.005 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bach, K. , and R. Harnish
    (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellert, I
    (1977) On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry8: 337-351.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D. , S. Johansson , G. Leech , S. Conrad , and E. Finegan
    (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown, P. , and S.C. Levinson
    (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Caffi, C
    (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics31: 881-909. doi: 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00098‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8 [Google Scholar]
  8. Edwards, D. , and A. Fasulo
    (2006) “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in- interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39: 343-376. doi: 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3904_1 [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, F.H. van
    (2010) Strategic Maneuvering. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, F.H. van , and R. Grootendorst
    (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. doi: 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  11. (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma- dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, F.H. van , and P. Houtlosser
    (2000) Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The case of R.J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293-305. doi: 10.1023/A:1007857114100
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007857114100 [Google Scholar]
  14. (2002a) Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publications, pp. 131-159.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2002b) Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/ Newport: SicSat/Vale Press, pp. 13-28.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2004) Flexible facts: A pragma-dialectical analysis of a burden of proof manipulation. In T. Suzuku , Y. Yano and T. Kato (eds.), Argumentation and Cognition. Tokyo: Japan Debate Association, pp. 47-51.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Eemeren, F.H. van , P. Houtlosser , and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans
    (2007) Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-dialectical Study. Argumentation Library, vol.12. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grice, P
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp.41-58.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Houtlosser, P
    (2001) Points of view. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 27-50.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2002) Indicators of a point of view. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma- Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press, pp. 169-184.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Huddleston, R. , and G. Pullum
    (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunston, S. , and G. Thompson
    (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Hyland, K
    (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.54
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.54 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ifantidou, E
    (2001) Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi: 10.1075/pbns.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.86 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kauffeld, F.J
    (1998) Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation12: 245-266. doi: 10.1023/A:1007704116379
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379 [Google Scholar]
  26. Oh, Sun-Young
    (2000) Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics4: 243-268. doi: 10.1017/S1360674300000241
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674300000241 [Google Scholar]
  27. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. , and K. Aijmer
    (2002-2003) The expectation marker of course in a cross- linguistic perspective. Languages in Contrast4: 13-43. doi: 10.1075/lic.4.1.03sim
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.4.1.03sim [Google Scholar]
  28. Smith, S.W. , and A.H. Jucker
    (2000) Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In C. Andersen and T. Fretheim (eds.), Pragmatic Markers and Propositional Attitude. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.207-237. doi: 10.1075/pbns.79.10smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.79.10smi [Google Scholar]
  29. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F
    (1992) Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. (2002) Clues for reconstructing symptomatic argumentation. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press, pp. 185-195.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003a) Indicators of analogy argumentation. In F.H. van Eemeren , J.A. Blair , Ch.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 969-973.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. (2003b) Indicators of argumentation structures. In J.A. Blair , D. Farr , H.V. Hansen , R.H. Johnson and C.W. Tindale (eds.), Informal Logic at 25: Proceedings of the Windsor Conference. CD Rom, Windsor, ON: OSSA, pp. 1-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Tseronis, A
    (2007) The management of the burden of proof and its implications for the analysis of qualified standpoints: The case of evaluative adverbials. In F.H. van Eemeren , J.A. Blair , Ch.A. Willard and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat, pp. 1387-1394.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2009) Qualifying Standpoints. Stance Adverbs as a Presentational Device for Managing the Burden of Proof. Utrecht: LOT Dissertation Series.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21.3.09tse
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error