chapter 2 stance adverbs qualifying a standpoint - LOT publications

More documents

Recommendations

Info

54 CHAPTER 2 disjuncts even though they may resemble them, despite the paraphrase with speaking that both groups can take. As I argue in the following section, domain adverbs 34 can be considered together with the so-called modal and evidential adverbs as belonging to the same group of adverbs that may realise linguistically the epistemic way of qualifying standpoints. This is possible because the semantic criterion of degree of commitment to the truth/falsity of the proposition is not a decisive criterion when it comes to the qualification of a standpoint. 2.3.1.2 Emphasising the quality of the evidence In general, it is acknowledged that modal adverbs like perhaps and clearly, and evidential adverbs like apparently and allegedly indicate strong or weak degree of commitment to the truth of the proposition that is asserted in a sentence and can thereby be used in order to boost or downplay the effect that the asserted sentence has or the expectations that it creates for the audience (Holmes, 1984; Sbisà, 2001). In this section, I argue that there is no difference in the discourse effect that using a modal or an evidential adverb has when qualifying a standpoint in an argumentative discourse. I also argue that domain adverbs follow the same pattern and that all three groups of adverbs can be considered as the linguistic realisation of the epistemic way of qualifying standpoints. This way of qualifying standpoints seeks to emphasise the quality of the evidence that the protagonist is ready to forward in support of the standpoint. In the pragma-linguistic literature, the equation between the lexical meaning of such adverbs as certainly, clearly, obviously, perhaps, possibly, probably, surely, and the effect of emphasising or acknowledging a limitation in the speaker‟s knowledge or commitment is not a straightforward one. Aijmer (2002b), reviewing some studies concerning adverbs such as certainly, no doubt, and surely, remarks that scholars have different views on whether these adverbs mark certainty or uncertainty. Part of the disagreement arises from the confusion between meaning as lexical meaning of these words and meaning as the use that can be made of these words in context. The question for my study, however, concerns the effect of the language user‟s choice to mark a high or low degree of probability/certainty in argumentative discourse. Whether marking a high or low degree of probability (or of certainty or commitment) can be achieved in a particular context by using certainly and in another by using no doubt or probably is of no direct importance here. Having said that, it should 34 In the list of domain adverbs that I present in Table 2, I do not include the adverbs essentially, fundamentally, nominally, and outwardly. This is because they do not function in the same way as adverbs like technically and theoretically, which indicate a field or perspective from which the language user asserts the truth of the proposition. The adverbs basically and generally are also missing from this list because they are not used in order to specify some field but rather to indicate the style of speaking. They appear together with adverbs like briefly, figuratively, and roughly under „illocutionary adverbs‟ in the third column. See 2.3.3.1.
STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPOINT 55 be clear that there is no established agreement concerning the adverbs that fall under the rubric of the „modal‟ or „epistemic‟ group and that there is still a lot to be said concerning the multifunctionality of most of these adverbs. 35 Merlini Barbaresi (1987) distinguishes adverbs like arguably, certainly, perhaps, possibly, presumably, and probably, from adverbs like apparently, clearly, obviously, oddly, seemingly, and surprisingly. 36 The former are labelled „epistemic modifiers‟. They are locutor-oriented in the sense that they express degrees of the speaker‟s personal commitment to the correctness of what he asserts. The latter are labelled „inferability indicators‟. They are receiver-oriented in the sense that they indicate how acceptable the speaker judges his utterance to be for his interlocutor. While epistemic modifiers directly contribute to the epistemic evaluation and thereby make the speaker‟s commitment shift on the epistemic scale, inferability indicators do not, in principle, mark a high or low degree of commitment. Merlini Barbaresi further observes that “the epistemic evaluation of the thesis belongs naturally to the argumentative-line dimension, the inferability assessment to the metatextual dimension” (1987, p. 20). This author‟s distinction echoes the distinction between adverbs that signal (subjective) epistemic modality and adverbs that signal evidentiality. 37 Epistemic modality is an indication of the speaker‟s evaluation of the probability of the state of affairs expressed in the clause, while evidentiality is an indication of the speaker‟s evaluation of the nature or quality of the sources of the evidence for accepting the existence of a state of affairs (Nuyts, 1993, 2005). While the definition of the two concepts appears clear, the boundaries between the various elements that constitute the linguistic realisation of the one or the other are not. As Nuyts observes, evidential categories often suggest or imply a certain degree of probability of the state of affairs. With respect to obviously, for example, Aijmer (2006) observes that while its lexical meaning suggests that the speaker draws the conclusion on the basis of some evidence, when used in context it signals that something is not obvious or that the speaker has strong evidence for what he asserts. Aijmer identifies the various functions that the use of obviously has in the various contexts in which it appears as follows: a) a strongly evidential function, where the speaker emphasises the strength of the evidence he has; b) a distancing/ hedging function, where the source of the evidence that the speaker has is externalised or attributed to some source other than the speaker (what people say); c) an impositive function, where the speaker suggests that the proposition should be 35 Adverbs like certainly, clearly, obviously, and surely are used not only to indicate strong degree of commitment but also, by extension, to emphasise the unexpectedness or expectedness of the speaker‟s utterance. In Table 2, these adverbs appear both under the first and the third column, marked with an asterisk. 36 All of these adverbs, with the exception of oddly and surprisingly appear under the first column of Table 2. The latter appear under the second column of Table 2, and are discussed in 2.3.2. 37 On the concept of evidentiality and the lexical or grammatical realisation of it in language, see Chafe (1986) and Rooryck (2001a, 2001b).
Page 1 and 2: CHAPTER 2 STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING
Page 3 and 4: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO
Page 11: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO
Page 35: STANCE ADVERBS QUALIFYING A STANDPO

chapter 2 stance adverbs qualifying a standpoint - LOT publications

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?