Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 33:1 (2023) ► pp.1–22

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

The use of boosters and evidentials in British campaign debates on the Brexit referendum

ORCiD logo with link | Universitat Politècnica de València
ORCiD logo with link | Universitat Politècnica de València
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 8 June 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.21008.car
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Evidential devices, boosters, and political discourse
  • 3.Materials and methods
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Results and discussion of boosters used in the BBC’s “Great Debate”
      • 4.1.1Boosters in the anti-Brexit sub-corpus
      • 4.1.2Boosters in the pro-Brexit sub-corpus
    • 4.2Results and discussion of evidential devices used in the BBC’s “Great Debate”
      • 4.2.1Evidentials in the anti-Brexit sub-corpus
      • 4.2.2Evidentials in the pro-Brexit sub-corpus
  • 5.Conclusions
  • References
References (55)
References
Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel. 2011. “Poring Over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 288–297. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2005. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Liletrad 11: 87–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 1471: 86–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco. 2015. “On the Mitigation Function of Modality and Evidentiality. Evidence from English and Spanish Medical Research Papers.” Intercultural Pragmatics 12 (1): 33–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, Francisco, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor. 2017. “Variation and Function of Modals in Linguistics and Engineering Research Papers in English.” In Evidentiality and Modality in European Languages. Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Juana 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. “Constructing Legitimation in Scottish Newspapers: The Case of the Independence Referendum.” Discourse Studies 211: 621–635. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 & Communication 291: 312–327. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berlin, Lawrence N., and Alejandra Prieto-Mendoza. 2014. “Evidential Embellishment in Political Debates during US Campaigns.” Intercultural Pragmatics 11 (3): 389–409. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buckledee, Steve. 2018. The Language of Brexit: How Britain Talked Its Way Out of the European Union. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, Michael S. 2014. “(New) Participatory Framework on Youtube? Commenter Interaction in US Political Speeches.” Journal of Pragmatics 721: 46–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Keith. 2005. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bussmann, Hadumod. 2006. Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr. 2017. “Studying Ideological Worldviews in Political Discourse Space: Critical-Cognitive Advances in the Analysis of Conflict and Coercion.” Journal of Pragmatics 1081: 17–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cap, Piotr, and Ursula Okulska (eds.). 2013. Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2014. “Cross-Cultural Variation in the Use of Modal Verbs in Academic English.” SKY Journal of Linguistics 271: 153–166.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa, and Ruth Muñiz-Calderón. 2015. “Identification and Causes of Lexical Variation in Chinese Business English.” English Today 311: 10–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carrió-Pastor, María Luisa. 2016a. “Mitigation of Claims in Medical Research Papers: A Comparative Study of English and Spanish Writers.” Communication & Medicine 131: 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. “A Contrastive Study of the Hedges Used by English, Spanish and Chinese Researchers in Academic Papers.” In Input a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Francisco Alonso Almeida, Ivalla Ortega Barrera, Elena Quintana Toledo, and Margarita E. Sánchez Cuervo, 477–492. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016c. “A Contrastive Study of Interactive Metadiscourse in Academic Papers Written in English and in Spanish.” In Corpus-Based Studies on Language Varieties, ed. by Francisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz García, and Víctor González Ruiz, 89–114. Bern: Linguistic Insights.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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 Pragmatics 15 (1): 45–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019b. “Do Writers Express the Same Attitude in Historical Genres?” In Writing History in Late Modern English. Explorations of The Coruña Corpus, ed. by Isabel Moskowich, Begoña Crespo, Luis Puente-Castelo, and Leida Maria Monaco, 237–259. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 40 (1): 95–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dahl, Trine. 2004. “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics 361: 1807–1825. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eriksson, Göran. 2011. “Follow-Up Questions in Political Press Conferences.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3331–3344. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 41: 59–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita, and Gerda Lauerbach (eds.). 2007. Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fracchiolla, Béatrice. 2011. “Politeness as a Strategy of Attack in a Gendered Political Debate. The Royal–Sarkozy Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (10): 2480–2488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friedman, Elie, and Zohar Kampf. 2014. “Politically Speaking at Home and Abroad: A Typology of Message Gap Strategies.” Discourse & Society 25 (6): 706–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
García-Pastor, María Dolores. 2008. “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates’ Exchanges.” In Impoliteness in Language, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Miriam A. Locher, 101–126. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 50 (1): 152–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (4): 437–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken, and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25 (2): 156–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. “Disciplinary Interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 Postgraduate Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 131: 133–151. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. “Metadiscourse: Mapping Interactions in Academic Writing.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 9 (2): 125–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. “Metadiscourse.” In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction 3 Volume Set, ed. by Karen Tracy, Cornelia Ilie, and Todd Sandel, 997–1006. London: John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 2 (1): 71–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 & Communication 6 (2): 135–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kampf, Zohar. 2016. “All the Best! Performing Solidarity in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 931: 47–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koutsantoni, Dimitra. 2004. “Attitude, Certainty and Allusions to Common Knowledge in Scientific Research Articles.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 31: 163–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lauerbach, Gerda. 2007. “Argumentation in Political Talk Show Interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 391: 1388–1419. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 & Media 251: 143–152. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2011. “Epistemic Legitimizing Strategies, Commitment and Accountability in Discourse.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 789–797. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Marta Carretero, Jorge A. Hita, and Johan Van der Auwera (eds). 2013. English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality. Berlin: de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, Juana I., Gerda Hassler, and Marta Carretero (eds). 2017. Evidentiality Revisited: Cognitive Grammar, Functional and Discourse-Pragmatic Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar. 2011. “An Intercultural Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Research Articles Written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3068–3079. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. 2017. “Metaphor, Irony and Sarcasm in Public Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 1091: 95–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Pragmatics 43 (43): 3251–3266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Remer, Gary. 2008. “Genres of Political Speech: Oratory and Conversation, Today and in Antiquity.” Language & Communication 28 (2): 182–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rendle-Short, Johanna. 2007. “‘Catherine, You’re Wasting Your Time’: Address Terms within the Australian Political Interview.” Journal of Pragmatics 39 (9): 1503–1525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sclafani, Jennifer. 2017. Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse and Political Identity. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2001. “Interaction in Academic Writing: Learning to Argue with the Reader.” Applied Linguistics 22 (1): 58–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Man, Weiwei Sun, Huan Peng, Qiong Gan, and Bo Yu. 2017. “A Multidimensional Analysis of Metadiscourse Markers across Spoken Registers.” Journal of Pragmatics 1171: 106–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Garofalo, Giovanni
2025. El discurso de las instituciones biosanitarias en torno a la salud femenina: Un análisis asistido por corpus del metadiscurso interpersonal. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 103 ► pp. 215 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue