Advertisement

Expressives in Argumentation: The Case of Apprehensive Straks (‘Shortly’) in Dutch

  • Ronny BoogaartEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 35)

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the use of expressive utterances in argumentative discourse as a strategic maneuver within the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation. It focuses on an expressive linguistic pattern from Dutch, consisting of a temporal adverb indicating “immediate future” in clause-initial position, usually straks (‘shortly’), and specific prosodic properties, It is shown that the pattern constitutes a construction in the sense of Construction Grammar since its formal properties systematically correspond with a specific reading of “apprehension”, in which the temporal meaning of the adverb may be backgrounded. As such, the construction is naturally used in argumentative discourse for negative pragmatic argumentation, but also for (a subtype of) Reductio ad Absurdum. Use of expressive constructions in argumentation may be strategic since they suggest to be a direct reflection of what the speaker feels and they may be analyzed as flouting rather than violating the rules for critical discussion, thus as instances of overt unreasonableness. This makes such argumentative moves hard to criticize by the antagonist.

References

  1. Alcaide Lara, E., Carranza Márquez, A, & Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2016). Emotional argumentation in political discourse. In C. Fuentes Rodríguez & G. Álvarez Benito (Eds.), A gender-based approach to parliamentary discourse. The Andalusian parliament (pp. 129–159). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Angelo, D., & Schultze-Berndt, E. (2016). Beware bambai—lest it be apprehensive. In F. Meakins & C. O’Shannessy (Eds.), Loss and renewal: Australian languages in contact (pp. 255–296). Boston/Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: P. Mardaga.Google Scholar
  4. Audring, J. (2013). “Je bent zelf een universele afstandsbediening”. Hoe een schoolpleinzinnetje Twitter veroverde (“You are a universal remote control yourself”. How a school yard phrase conquered Twitter). Onze Taal, 82, 88–89.Google Scholar
  5. Boogaart, R. (2009). Een retorische straks-constructie (A rhetorical straks-construction). In R. Boogaart, J. Lalleman, M. Mooijaart, & M. van der Wal (Eds.), Woorden wisselen. Voor Ariane van Santen bij haar afscheid van de Leidse universiteit (pp. 167–182). Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
  6. Boogaart, R. (2013). Strategische manoeuvres met sterke drank: redelijk effectief? (Strategic manoeuvres with hard liquor: Reasonably effective?). In Th A J M Janssen & T. van Strien (Eds.), Neerlandistiek in Beeld (pp. 283–292). Amsterdam/Münster: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
  7. Boogaart, R. (2017). Straks heeft het Nederlands nog een apprehensive! (Next thing Dutch will have an apprehensive!). VakTaal, 30, 24.Google Scholar
  8. Boogaart, R., & Reuneker, A. (2017). Intersubjectivity and grammar. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 188–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chafe, W. (1988). Punctuation and the prosody of written language. Written Communication, 5, 395–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English. A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Corver, N. (2016). Emotion in the build of Dutch: Deviation, augmentation and duplication. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde, 132, 232–275.Google Scholar
  12. Ducrot, O. (2009). Slovenian lectures. Introduction into argumentative semantics. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dynel, M. (2018). Irony, deception and humour. Seeking the truth about over and covert untruthfulness. Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with threats. In F. H. van Eemeren, (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 815–826). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style. The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Foolen, A. (2015). Expressives. In N. Riemer (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of semantics (pp. 473–490). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Garssen, B. (2009). Ad Hominem in disguise: Strategic Manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 207–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hilpert, M. (2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Jansen, H. (2007). Refuting a standpoint by appealing to its outcomes: Reductio ad Absurdum vs. Argument from Consequences. Informal Logic, 27, 249–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jansen, H. (2017). “You think that says a lot, but really it says nothing”. An argumentative and linguistic account of an idiomatic expression functioning as a presentational device. Argumentation, 31, 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Krabbe, E., & van Laar, J. A. (2015). That’s no argument! The dialectic of non-argumentation. Synthese, 192, 1173–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lichtenberk, F. (1995). Apprehensional epistemics. In J. L. Bybee & S. Fleischman (Eds.), Modality in grammar and discourse (pp. 293–328). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pascual, E. (2014). Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language, and discourse. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Potts, Ch. (2007). The expressive dimension. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 165–198.Google Scholar
  26. Sanders, E. (2019, March 12). Wij van WC-eend. NRC Handelsblad. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/03/20/wij-van-wc-eend-a3953808.
  27. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2009). Manoeuvring strategically with ‘praeteritio’. Argumentation, 23, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Strategic manoeuvring with hyperbole in political debate. In F. H. van Eemeren & W. Peng (Eds.), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp. 269–280). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sweetser, E. (1990). From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, Mass./London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjmains.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and Fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2005). Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F. H, & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2017). Argumentation. Analysis and evaluation, 2nd edn. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. van Ginkel, A. (2018). Wie weet/Voor(dat) je het weet. Een onderzoek naar de sturende kracht van de constructies wie weet en voor(dat) je het weet (Wie weet/Voor(dat) je het weet. An investigation of the rhetorical orientation of the constructions wie weet (‘who knows’) and voor(dat) je het weet (‘before you know it’)) (MA thesis, Leiden University).Google Scholar
  37. van Haaften, T. & van Leeuwen, M. (2018). Strategic maneuvering with presentational devices: A systematic approach. In S. Oswald, & D. Maillat (Eds.), Argumentation and inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Volume II (pp. 873–886). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  38. van Leeuwen, M. (2014). Systematic stylistic analysis. The use of a linguistic checklist. In B. Kaal, I. Max, & A. van Elfrinkhof (Eds.), From text to political positions. Text analysis across disciplines (pp. 225–244). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  39. Verhagen, A. (2000). “The girl that promised to become something”: An exploration into diachronic subjectification in Dutch. In T. F. Shannon & J. P. Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1997: The Dutch Language at the Millennium (pp. 197–208). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  40. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Walton, D. (1992). Slippery slope arguments. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leiden University Centre for LinguisticsLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations