Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 21:3 (2011) ► pp.473–490
Use and abuse of the strategic function of in fact and frankly when qualifying a standpoint
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2011
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.09tse
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.3.09tse
This paper seeks to specify the strategic function of adverbs like in fact and frankly 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.
References (34)
Aijmer, K. (2002) English Discourse Particles. Evidence From a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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 361: 1781-1805. BoP
Bach, K., and R. Harnish (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. BoP
Bellert, I. (1977) On semantic and distributional properties of sentential adverbs. Linguistic Inquiry 81: 337-351.
Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, and E. Finegan (1999) The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
Brown, P., and S.C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caffi, C. (1999) On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 311: 881-909. BoP
Edwards, D., and A. Fasulo (2006) “To be honest”: Sequential uses of honesty phrases in talk-in- interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 391: 343-376.
Eemeren, F.H. van (2010) Strategic Maneuvering. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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. BoP
(1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma- dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van, and P. Houtlosser (2000) Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The case of R.J. Reynolds. Argumentation 141: 293-305.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Eemeren, F.H. van, P. Houtlosser, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (2007) Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-dialectical Study. Argumentation Library, vol.121. Dordrecht: Springer.
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.
Houtlosser, P. (2001) Points of view. In F.H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, pp. 27-50.
. (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.
Huddleston, R., and G. Pullum (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunston, S., and G. Thompson (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Hyland, K. (1998) Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Ifantidou, E. (2001) Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Kauffeld, F.J. (1998) Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 121: 245-266.
Oh, Sun-Young (2000) Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics 41: 243-268.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M., and K. Aijmer (2002-2003) The expectation marker of course in a cross- linguistic perspective. Languages in Contrast 41: 13-43.
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.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (1992) Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.
. (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.
. (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.
. (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.
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.