The subordinates strengthen the
illocutionary force of the directive, they round it out and complement it. However, in the
discourse generated in a political debate, as strange as it may seem, we find few
instances, because the orator has little time to formulate, and this feature greatly
increases the informational density of the intervention.
What we have
presented here, then, is a rapid approximation to the complexity of discourse, plus a
series of concepts, taken from pragmatic theory and the theory of argumentation which may
make the analysis clearer. We have seen that the concessive orientation is the most
habitual in the type of political debate analysed here, followed by the consecutive
orientation. The conclusive mode, on the other hand, is not found so frequently, except in
the chunks of monologue, the parts of the discourse which the speakers had partially
prepared -occurring in the first few minutes and closing minutes of the debate. The
pragmatic markers that work to indicate these orientations constitute a restricted list,
and in any case may be omitted. Comparative analysis of the argumentative orientations in
the speech of the different politicians analysed in this article, may make it considerably
clearer to us, why they are more, or less, effective.
C. and DUCROT, O. L'argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Madarga, 1983.
BASSOLS; M. Les
claus de la pragmàtica. Vic: EUMO, 2001.
DUCROT, O. Les
echelles argumentatives. Paris: Ed. Minuit, 1984.
GRICE, H. P.
"Logic and conversation". A COLE, P. & MORGAN, J. (eds): Syntax and
Semantics. Vol. 3. Speech Acts. Nova York: Academic Press, 1975. P. 41-58.
GRICE, H. P.
"Further notes on logic and conversation". A COLE, P. (ed.): Syntax and
semantics, Vol. 9. Pragmatics. Nova York: Academic Press, 1978. P.113-128.
& MEY, J. L. "Linguistics and pragmatics, 25 years after". Journal of
Pragmatics. [Amsterdam] (2002), vol. 34, n. 12, p.1671-1682.
"El problema del significado en las lenguas primitivas". A OGDEN, C. K. i
RICHARDS, I. A. The meaning of meaning, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1949.
MOESCHLER, J. Dire
et contradire: pragmatique de la negation et acte de réfutation dans la conversation. Franckfort:
Peter Lang, 1982.
MOESCHLER, J. Argumentation
et conversation. Élements pour une analyse pragmatique du discours. Paris:
MOESCHLER, J. Modelisation
du dialogue: répresentation de linference argumentative. Paris: Hermes, 1989.
(ed.) Argumentation, relevance and discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1989.
& MOESCHLER, J. Pragmatique du discours. Paris: Armand Colin, 1998.
SEARLE J. F. Speech
Acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1970. Ed. Castellana, Cátedra, 1980.
& WILSON, D. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
2a ed., 1995.
F. H. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publication, 1984.
F. H. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds.
Mahwah: Earlbaum, 1996.
F. H. Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
F. H. i GROOTENDORST Argumentation, communication and fallacies: a pragma-dialectal
perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum, 1992.
Bassols i Puig
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona