1887
Volume 33, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1018-2101
  • E-ISSN: 2406-4238

Abstract

Abstract

Little attention has been given to the role of metadiscoursal devices in non-academic discourses with an overtly persuasive component such as political discourse. We address this gap by analysing the presence and function of evidentials and boosters in the 2016 campaign debates on the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum (also known as the Brexit referendum). In this vein, our objectives are first, to analyse the evidentials and boosters most frequently used in these debates and relate them to the speakers’ goals, and second, to contrast the use of these devices with the results of the referendum. Data were quantitatively analysed with METOOL, a tool specifically developed to detect metadiscoursal strategies. The results showed how the strategies identified here tended to work in combination towards the representation of a credible self, challenging opposing views on the same issue. Finally, conclusions were drawn.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21008.car
2022-06-08
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/prag.21008.car.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21008.car&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel
    2011 “Poring Over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 288–297. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.019 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
    2005Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albalat-Mascarell, Ana
    2015 “El metadiscurso como marco de análisis comparativo funcional entre el inglés y el español en los discursos de especialidad.” Revista Académica Liletrad11: 87–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albalat-Mascarell, Ana, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
    2019 “Self-representation in Political Campaign Talk: A Functional Metadiscourse Approach to Self-mentions in Televised Presidential Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics1471: 86–99. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.011 [Google Scholar]
  5. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco
    2015 “On the Mitigation Function of Modality and Evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish Medical Research Papers.” Intercultural Pragmatics12 (1): 33–57. 10.1515/ip‑2015‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2015-0002 [Google Scholar]
  6. Alonso-Almeida, Francisco, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
    2017 “Variation and Function of Modals in Linguistics and Engineering Research Papers in English.” InEvidentiality and Modality in European Languages. Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. byJuana I. Marín-Arrese, Julia Lavid-López, Marta Carratero, Elena Domínguez Romero, Ma Victoria Martín de la Rosa, and María Pérez Blanco, 242–277. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2019 “Constructing Legitimation in Scottish Newspapers: The Case of the Independence Referendum.” Discourse Studies211: 621–635. 10.1177/1461445619866982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866982 [Google Scholar]
  8. Andrus, Jennifer
    2009 “The Development of an Artefactual Language Ideology: Utterance, Event, and Agency in the Metadiscourse of the Excited Utterance Exception to Hearsay.” Language & Communication291: 312–327. 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Berlin, Lawrence N., and Alejandra Prieto-Mendoza
    2014 “Evidential Embellishment in Political Debates during US Campaigns.” Intercultural Pragmatics11 (3): 389–409. 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0018 [Google Scholar]
  10. Buckledee, Steve
    2018The Language of Brexit: How Britain Talked Its Way Out of the European Union. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boyd, Michael S.
    2014 “(New) Participatory Framework on Youtube? Commenter Interaction in US Political Speeches.” Journal of Pragmatics721: 46–58. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brown, Keith
    2005Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bussmann, Hadumod
    2006Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203980057
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203980057 [Google Scholar]
  14. Cap, Piotr
    2017 “Studying Ideological Worldviews in Political Discourse Space: Critical-Cognitive Advances in the Analysis of Conflict and Coercion.” Journal of Pragmatics1081: 17–27. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cap, Piotr, and Ursula Okulska
    (eds.) 2013Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
  16. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2014 “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Modal Verbs in Academic English.” SKY Journal of Linguistics271: 153–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz-Calderón
    2015 “Identification and Causes of Lexical Variation in Chinese Business English.” English Today311: 10–15. 10.1017/S0266078414000480
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078414000480 [Google Scholar]
  18. Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa
    2016a “Mitigation of Claims in Medical Research Papers: A Comparative Study of English and Spanish Writers.” Communication & Medicine131: 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2016b “A Contrastive Study of the Hedges Used by English, Spanish and Chinese Researchers in Academic Papers.” InInput a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics, ed. byFrancisco Alonso Almeida, Ivalla Ortega Barrera, Elena Quintana Toledo, and Margarita E. Sánchez Cuervo, 477–492. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2016c “A Contrastive Study of Interactive Metadiscourse in Academic Papers Written in English and in Spanish.” InCorpus-Based Studies on Language Varieties, ed. byFrancisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz García, and Víctor González Ruiz, 89–114. Bern: Linguistic Insights.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2019a “Different Ways to Express Personal Attitudes in Spanish and English Engineering Papers: An Analysis of Metadiscourse Devices, Affective Evaluation and Sentiment Analysis.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics15 (1): 45–67. 10.1515/lpp‑2019‑0004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2019-0004 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2019b “Do Writers Express the Same Attitude in Historical Genres?” InWriting History in Late Modern English. Explorations of The Coruña Corpus, ed. byIsabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luis Puente-Castelo, and Leida Maria Monaco, 237–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.225.12car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.225.12car [Google Scholar]
  23. Dafouz, Emma
    2008 “The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics40 (1): 95–113. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dahl, Trine
    2004 “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics361: 1807–1825. 10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2004.05.004 [Google Scholar]
  25. Eriksson, Göran
    2011 “Follow-Up Questions in Political Press Conferences.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 3331–3344. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.07.004 [Google Scholar]
  26. Estellés, María
    2019 “The Evolution of Parliamentary Debates in Light of the Evolution of Evidentials: Al Parecer and Por Lo Visto in 40 Years of Parliamentary Proceedings from Spain.” Corpus Pragmatics41: 59–82. 10.1007/s41701‑019‑00066‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00066-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. Fetzer, Anita, and Gerda Lauerbach
    (eds.) 2007Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.160
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.160 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fracchiolla, Béatrice
    2011 “Politeness as a Strategy of Attack in a Gendered Political Debate. The Royal–Sarkozy Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (10): 2480–2488. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  29. Friedman, Elie, and Zohar Kampf
    2014 “Politically Speaking at Home and Abroad: A Typology of Message Gap Strategies.” Discourse & Society25 (6): 706–724. 10.1177/0957926514536836
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536836 [Google Scholar]
  30. García-Pastor, María Dolores
    2008 “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges.” InImpoliteness in Language, ed. byDerek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 101–126. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gnisci, Augusto, Pierpaolo Zollo, Marco Perugini, and Angiola Di Conza
    2013 “A Comparative Study of Toughness and Neutrality in Italian and English Political Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics50 (1): 152–167. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.009 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hyland, Ken
    1998 “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics30 (4): 437–455. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics25 (2): 156–177. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hyland, Ken
    2004 “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing131: 133–151. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2005Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 2010 “Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing.” Nordic Journal of English Studies9 (2): 125–143. 10.35360/njes.220
    https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2015 “Metadiscourse.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction 3 Volume Set, ed. byKaren Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 997–1006. London: John Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi003 [Google Scholar]
  38. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics2 (1): 71–92. 10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili [Google Scholar]
  39. Jalilifar, Alireza, and Maryam Alavi-Nia
    2012 “We Are Surprised; Wasn’t Iran Disgraced There? A Functional Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in Televised Iranian and American Presidential Debates.” Discourse & Communication6 (2): 135–161. 10.1177/1750481311434763
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481311434763 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kampf, Zohar
    2016 “All the Best! Performing Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics931: 47–60. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  41. Koutsantoni, Dimitra
    2004 “Attitude, Certainty and Allusions to Common Knowledge in Scientific Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes31: 163–182. 10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lauerbach, Gerda
    2007 “Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics391: 1388–1419. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, Dilin, and Lei Lei
    2018 “The Appeal to Political Sentiment: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Speech Themes and Discourse Strategies in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Discourse, Context & Media251: 143–152. 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Marín-Arrese, Juana I.
    2011 “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies13 (6): 789–797. 10.1177/1461445611421360c
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611421360c [Google Scholar]
  45. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge A. Hita, and Johan Van der Auwera
    (eds) 2013English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110286328
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328 [Google Scholar]
  46. Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Gerda Hassler, and Marta Carretero
    (eds) 2017Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.271
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.271 [Google Scholar]
  47. Moya-Muñoz, Patricio, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor
    2018 “Estrategias de intensificación en los comentarios digitales sobre noticias en español: un análisis de la variación entre España y Chile.” Spanish in Context151: 369–391. 10.1075/sic.00019.car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.00019.car [Google Scholar]
  48. Mur-Dueñas, Pilar
    2011 “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 3068–3079. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  49. Musolff, Andreas
    2017 “Metaphor, Irony and Sarcasm in Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics1091: 95–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  50. Proctor, Katarzyna, I. Lily, and Wen Su
    2011 “The 1st Person Plural in Political Discourse. American Politicians in Interviews and in a Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics43 (43): 3251–3266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010 [Google Scholar]
  51. Remer, Gary
    2008 “Genres of Political Speech: Oratory and Conversation, Today and in Antiquity.” Language & Communication28 (2): 182–196. 10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2008.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  52. Rendle-Short, Johanna
    2007 “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics39 (9): 1503–1525. 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.02.006 [Google Scholar]
  53. Sclafani, Jennifer
    2017Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse and Political Identity. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315276885
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276885 [Google Scholar]
  54. Thompson, Geoff
    2001 “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.” Applied Linguistics22 (1): 58–78. 10.1093/applin/22.1.58
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.1.58 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, Man, Weiwei Sun, Huan Peng, Qiong Gan, and Bo Yu
    2017 “A Multidimensional Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers across Spoken Registers.” Journal of Pragmatics1171: 106–118. 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.004 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21008.car
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.21008.car
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): boosters; Brexit referendum; campaign debates; evidential devices; political discourse
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