Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma
Pragmatic support of medical recommendations
in popularized texts
Susana Gallardo
Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Termtex1,
Honduras 3704 88 ‘‘15’’, 1180 Buenos Aires, Argentina
Received 10 February 2004; received in revised form 25 September 2004; accepted 10 October 2004
Abstract
In order to be successful, speech acts that are intended to get the hearer to do something are often
accompanied by supporting utterances aimed at making him/her understand their communicative
purpose and, accept it as appropriate, as well as enabling him/her to perform the requested action. The
purpose of this article is to determine the type of utterances that support recommendations in a corpus
of popularizing medical texts published in two major Argentinean newspapers. The analysis shows
that the most frequent supporting functions are those aimed at the acceptance of the communicative
purpose. Also, supporting functions have been analyzed in terms of the speakers’ acceptance of
responsibility, i.e., we have considered whether supporting functions are (re-)formulated as a direct or
indirect quotation of the information source or are formulated by the reporter. Findings show that a
high percentage of supporting functions that justify recommendations are formulated as a direct
quotation of the specialist’s voice.
# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Main speech act; Supporting functions; Illocutionary structure; Quotation; Popularized science;
Medical discourse
E-mail address: [email protected].
Termtex is a research and teaching program on Terminology and Text at the Institute of Spanish Philology,
Faculty of Letters and Philosophy, University of Buenos Aires. Director: Dr. Guiomar Ciapuscio.
1
0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.013
814
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
1. Introduction
The purpose of this work is to determine what linguistic activities are performed to
support recommendations in popularized medical texts published in Argentinean
newspapers. Recommendations constitute a prototypical component of these texts, which,
besides their informative purpose, have an instructive-pedagogical intention.
It is assumed here that every text is composed of a main speech act and secondary
speech acts that support the former. The analysis of the hierarchical and sequential
illocutionary structure of these speech acts may contribute not only to the understanding of
a particular text type but also to the wider field of text typology. It is hypothesized that the
type of illocutionary structure may constitute a criterion allowing to refine the distinctions
between text types sharing the same function.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Science popularization
Science popularization is an area of language that has been studied over the last twenty
years from different perspectives: discourse studies, text linguistics, and sociological
studies, among others.
Linguists have tried to give a suitable definition of this activity and have analyzed
different aspects of texts: lexico-grammatical procedures, structure and functions. Most
studies of linguistic features consist of contrastive analyses in which popularized texts are
compared with their source texts: the research articles published in specialized journals
(Ciapuscio, 1993a, 1993b, 2000; Loffler-Laurian, 1983, 1984; Mortureux, 1982, 1985;
Harvey, 1995; Myers, 1991, 1994).
More recently, textual studies have questioned some of the traditional assumptions on
science communication, such as that knowledge travels only one way, from science to
society (Calsamiglia and López Ferrero, 2003; Ciapuscio, 2003; Moirand, 2003; Myers,
2003).
Studies on science popularization have either compared texts from different disciplines
or focused on a single discipline, with medicine being an area that has attracted much
interest. Studies focusing on one discipline have been aimed at comparing texts of different
levels of specialization, i.e., newspaper articles contrasted with research articles (Dubois,
1986; Varttala, 1999).
Furthermore, some studies have focused on citation (Calsamiglia and López Ferrero,
2001, 2003; Méndez Garcı́a de Paredes, 1999). In this perspective, it is considered that
through citation, writers manage the words of others in order to convey and serve their own
purposes.
A great number of other studies have been conducted from the standpoint of
conversational analysis in an attempt to shed light on doctor–patient relationship (Cicourel,
1985; Dı́az Martı́nez, 1999; Gülich, 2003; Heritage and Sefi, 1992). In the case of medical
advice, some authors conclude that patients are more motivated to comply with advice
when they receive enough information about their illness from the doctors. Doctor–patient
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
815
conversations have been studied also from the perspective of mitigation, defined as the
result of downgrading utterances (Caffi, 1999).
Despite the fact that some authors have dealt with scientific and medical issues as they
are treated in newspapers (focusing especially on persuasive purpose, intended furthering
of scientific evaluation (Ciapuscio, 1993a, 1993b), as well as didactic purpose (Moirand,
1997), not enough studies have been performed on the explicit directive purpose of these
texts; indeed, the offering of advice, which is central in doctor–patient interactions, has not
been analyzed in depth as it transpires in popularizing texts published in newspapers.
2.2. Text structure: some models
This article deals with the issue of text organization and the use of linguistic resources to
achieve communicative purposes. A number of studies have aimed to explain how
particular uses of language are chosen and why these uses succeed or fail. From a rhetorical
standpoint, Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) has proven to be a useful method for
describing and characterizing text structures in terms of relations that hold between parts of
text (Abelen et al., 1993; Mann et al., 1992; Mann and Thompson, 1988). This theory
identifies a hierarchic structure in texts and describes the relations between the parts of a
text in functional terms. Such relations between the parts (called nucleus and satellites) are
sometimes indicated by conjunctions and can hold between text parts of a wide range of
sizes, from clauses to groups of paragraphs; the number of relation types is open. All
relations share the characteristics of producing a communicative effect in terms of which
they can be categorized. Thus, they can be described in terms of the writer’s purposes, the
writer’s assumptions about the reader and certain propositional patterns in the subject
matter of the text. The text structuring relations reflect the writer’s choices of organization
and presentation.
On the basis of the writer’s presumed intentions, RST classifies relations as ‘subject
matter relations’, which serve the purpose of information transfer, and ‘presentational
relations’, which are aimed at increasing some inclination in the reader (Mann and
Thompson, 1988). Within the framework of systemic linguistics (Halliday, 1985), Abelen
et al. (1993) group text relations into three classes: interpersonal, ideational, and textual.
Ideational and textual relations can be seen as serving mainly the goal of clarity, while
interpersonal relations are used for making communication acceptable and convincing.
In a pragmatic perspective, Brandt and Rosengren (1992) have proposed some
principles for determining textual structure. They focus on the types of linguistic activities
performed by the writer in order to achieve the text’s communicative purposes and the
organization of these activities. Their proposal is based on the assumption that every text
has an illocutionary hierarchy that includes a dominant illocution and one or more
supporting illocutions. The dominant illocution2 expresses the speaker’s main purpose, for
example, for the hearer to answer a question or become aware of a fact.
2
The notion of ‘dominant illocution’ is equivalent to that of macro-speech act (van Dijk, 1977) or textual
function (Heinemann and Viehweger, 1991).
816
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
Brandt and Rosengren propose a higher principle that determines the illocutionary
hierarchy. This is the ‘‘success principle’’, which is based on the assumption that, in order
to achieve the communicative purpose, the writer needs to support the dominant illocution.
In order to achieve the main communicative purpose it is necessary to first meet the
hierarchically subordinate goals (Motsch and Pasch, 1987; Gülich and Kotschi, 1987). For
example, if a speaker wants his/her interlocutor to perform a certain action, he/she must
first have the interlocutor want to carry it out. For this to happen, however, it is necessary
that the interlocutor understands what is expected from him/her. In particular, in order to
make the interlocutor acknowledge and accept the speaker’s purpose, supporting
illocutions are needed.
Brandt and Rosengren distinguish two types of supporting functions: subsidiary
functions, which directly ensure the success of the dominant illocution, and complementary
functions, which pursue the same purpose indirectly. Complementary functions are
context-oriented and may serve to establish a good relationship with the reader by means of
polite or friendly phrases, such as thanking and greeting expressions in business letters.
Subsidiary functions are intended to (1) make the reader understand what the writer wants
from him/her, (2) accept the dominant illocution as appropriate, and (3) enable him/her to
perform the expected action. These functions can specify, exemplify, or explain an
illocution in order to ensure comprehension of the speaker’s purpose. They can also offer
reasons for a request or a recommendation so that the interlocutor agrees to perform what is
requested, as in:
I request you postpone your trip. We have a lot of work now.
In this example, the speaker formulates a request and provides information that justifies
it in order for the hearer to accept it. The use of a performative formula (I request) makes
the speaker’s purpose clear.
It must be noted that the supporting nature of a function is not intrinsic to the illocution,
but rather acquired in the illocutionary hierarchy. This means that an illocution can be a
command or a piece of advice and, at the same time, perform a supporting function within a
hierarchy. However, not all supports are illocutions; this is why Brandt and Rosengren use
the term supporting functions, a term which includes any kind of linguistic action. Thus,
activities such as specifying or justifying are considered as a special type of verbal action,
discourse production activities, as they are called by Gülich and Kotschi (1987).
Discourse production activities are aimed at organizing discourse. In order to account
for these activities, Gülich and Kotschi (1987), drawing on the classification of verbal
actions proposed by Motsch and Pasch (1987), consider discourse production activities as
different from illocutionary acts,3 since the former explicitly contribute to achieving the
goals that are subordinate to the main objective, such as facilitating acceptance of the
speaker’s intention and ensuring understanding of content.
3
Motsch and Pasch (1987) propose five types of verbal acts: illocutionary (asking, promising, blaming,
ordering); perlocutionary (amusing, irritating); verbal acts that realize the text superstructure (narrating, arguing,
exposing); acts determined by the dialogic nature of a text (answering, replying); and discourse production
activities (justifying, repeating, paraphrasing, summarizing, highlighting).
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
817
As regards activities that ensure comprehension, Gülich and Kotschi (1987, 1995)
distinguish between reformulating and non-reformulating procedures. The former –
repetition, paraphrase and correction – are used when an utterance is considered as
insufficient and/or as a potential trouble source. The latter are not related with a trouble
source but with rhetorical purposes; examples of these are generalization and
exemplification.
All these procedures play a role in the illocutionary hierarchy, as they are performed
with the aim of favoring the hearer’s understanding of the dominant illocution content.
Brandt and Rosengren’s proposal seems adequate both for descriptive and explanatory
purposes. The grouping of functions in accordance with their communicative success and
the achievement of subordinate goals seems more appropriate than does one that is based
on the distinction between ideational and interpersonal relations, since these metafunctions
are fulfilled simultaneously in each relation (Halliday, 1985). Hence, the usefulness of
Brandt and Rosengren’s distinction between subsidiary and complementary functions is
borne out.
In addition, considering that in these models, speech acts realize propositions and that
the coherence of a text depends on relationships between the latter, an analysis of the
illocutionary structure should consider the type of relationship established between the
propositions. Such connections between propositions are seen as reflecting the speaker’s
view of the events that the speech acts connect (Rudolph, 1988, 1996).
A hierarchical text structure, based on the types of supporting functions and of the
lexico-grammatical procedures by which they are realized, may offer some criteria for
characterizing textual classes and for distinguishing between them. As to functions,
not all of them may be applicable to all text types: Subsidiary functions may be present in
all textual classes, with differences as regards realization and dominance, while
complementary functions, which relate to context, might be specific, or even prototypical,
of a textual class; for example, thanking and greeting expressions are prototypical complementary functions in business letters, and thanking and acknowledgment expressions
are characteristic of dissertations and research articles.
3. Corpus and methodology
A corpus comprising 58 texts, published between 1998 and 1999 in the special
‘‘Health’’ sections of two leading Argentinean newspapers, Cları́n and La Nación,4 was
analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively, with a focus on the portions of the texts that
contain recommendations. I will call these instructive parts ‘‘Recommending’’; the other
parts are informative and do not include directive speech acts.
In order to determine the respective frequencies, I will take as unit of analysis the
propositional unit that a speech act realizes. A sentence may include more than one units, as
in the following example:
4
La Nación is a traditional large format newspaper, founded in 1870, which is aimed at middle and upper class
readers. Cları́n is a tabloid format newspaper, founded in 1945 and aimed at middle class readers. Although it is
less formal and more popular than La Nación, it is not so informal and sensationalist as typical tabloids.
818
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
‘‘In these cases what needs be done is to eradicate the bacterium, because it can
cause an ulcer’’, Musi pointed out. (See example (8), below, for source.)
To analyze the supporting functions in terms of the speaker’s acceptance of
responsibility, we have taken into account whether the supporting function is formulated
as a direct quotation of the information source, as an indirect quotation, or has been
formulated by the reporter without any reference to the information source. The
significance of possible differences was determined by the x2 test.
4. Analysis of the illocutionary structure of ‘‘Recommending’’
In this section, I will analyze the types and configuration of the illocutions realized in the
text portion called ‘‘Recommending’’. Most of the main illocutions here are of the directive
type, expressing obligation and prohibition. However, some assertions express different
kinds of acts: one termed comforting advice (Brown and Levinson, 1987), the other called
warnings; these can be considered as indirect directives.
4.1. Supporting functions
The subtypes of subsidiary functions can be identified according to their contribution to
each of the subordinate purposes.
I will refer to the function contributing to the reader’s understanding of the writer’s
purpose as the comprehension-ensuring function; and to that contributing to the reader’s
performing of the proposed action as the facilitating function. The semantic content of the
subsidiary functions and the dominant illocution are linked by functional relationships of
specification and addition. Comprehension-ensuring functions reformulate and expand the
content of the dominant illocution; facilitating functions provide additional information.
The function aimed at making the reader accept the communicative purpose as
appropriate, thereby motivating him/her to perform the requested action, will be termed
here the acceptance function. Depending on the way in which the acceptance function is
realized (with regard to semantic content, position with respect to the dominant illocution,
or type of connection), I distinguish four main subtypes:
the justification function: follows the dominant illocution, to which it may be linked
by a causal connective,
the enablement function: precedes the dominant illocution, to which it may be linked
by a connective of effect,
the concessive function: precedes the dominant illocution, to which it is linked by a
concessive or an adversative conjunction,
purpose-indicating function.
The names of functions reflect the writer’s communicative intention, viz., to get the
reader to comprehend and accept the writer’s purpose, and to enable him/her to carry out
the recommended action. We cannot know whether the reader actually comprehends,
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
819
accepts, and carries out the proposed action; here, we focus on the linguistic activities the
writer deploys to achieve those purposes. Furthermore, the writers in our corpus sometimes
formulate the acceptance function before a recommendation is given. In this case, the
acceptance function enables them to formulate the recommendation; hence we name it an
enablement function.5
4.1.1. Comprehension-ensuring function
In the analyzed texts, the comprehension-ensuring function is intended to help the
reader understand what actions must be carried out in order to take care of his/her health.
This function is performed by means of discourse production activities, mainly
reformulating or paraphrasing procedures, which are a characteristic feature in science
popularization (Mortureux, 1982; Loffler-Laurian, 1983; Ciapuscio, 1993a, 1993b;
Moirand, 1997). Also included in this category are fictitious questions, or ‘‘questions raised
and answered by the writer’’ (Ciapuscio, 1991),6 which anticipate the content of the
dominant illocution, and metapragmatic evaluations (Lucy, 1993), i.e., comments by the
writer that characterize and evaluate the speech acts or make explicit the illocutionary force
of quoted discourse. These will be illustrated below. In all the examples that follow, the
subsidiary function is underlined, and the dominant illocution is in italics.
Paraphrasing
Paraphrasing can expand the content of an illocution, as in explanation and
specification, or reduce it, such as in summary and denomination.
5
Note that this function is quite different from the ‘Enablement’ relation in RST, as the former enables the
writer to perform a speech act, while the latter enables the reader to carry out an action. The RST function is thus
equivalent to what we have called the facilitating function. The correspondences with the RST relations are shown
in Table 1. Furthermore, the writer may formulate the acceptance function immediately after the recommendation,
so, in this case, he/she justifies or gives reasons for the recommendation. This function shares some features with
the ‘Justification’ relation in RST, as well as with the ‘Motivation’ relation. We believe that the writer, in order to
achieve acceptance, offers reasons supporting the recommendation, and thus motivates the reader to carry out the
proposed action.
In case the acceptance function is realized before the recommendation (e.g., by asserting a fact that does not
represent an obstacle to formulating a recommendation), we refer to this acceptance function as concessive. This
is equivalent to the ‘Concession’ relation in RST, which obtains when the writer, while acknowledging a potential
or apparent incompatibility between the situations presented in the nucleus and the satellite still regards the
situation as compatible; this perceived compatibility increases the reader’s positive regard for the situation
presented in the nucleus.
Regarding the complementary functions, we have found one, which we have termed empathy, and which
contributes to the achievement of communicative success as the writer shows empathy with the reader. This
function is realized as an evaluation of the main illocution, so it can be related with ‘Evaluation’ and
‘Interpretation’ relations in RST, but the empathy function is more specific in its purpose, and can appear only
in certain text classes. In fact, it does not appear in many directive texts as, for example, medical leaflets, or nonsmoking signs. It is difficult to imagine a non-smoking sign saying: ‘‘Although it may not be easy for you, please
do not smoke in this area’’. (See further Section 4.1.4).
6
Ciapuscio (1991: 339) states the use of fictitious questions has several purposes: ‘‘[. . .] on the one hand, they
highlight the topics; on the other, they serve to achieve greater reader participation in the text and thus make the
text, though to a limited extent, more interactive’’ (my translation). Jones (1977), who calls these questions
rhetorical, says that this procedure directs the reader’s attention to the topic.
820
(1)
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
I. ‘‘Una de las principales estrategias para prevenir la anemia -explica
Carmuega- es cambiar la forma de comer, para aumentar la cantidad de
hierro que puede ser absorbido en el organismo’’.
I.1 Entre otras cosas, hay que combinar pequeñas cantidades de carne con
lentejas, espinacas, fruta fresca, vitamina C.
I.2 Y despedirse de la tradicional taza de té o de café después de cada comida.
(Cları́n, Jan. 26, 1998)
Main illocution, in italics; supporting function, underlined.
‘‘One of the main strategies to prevent anemia –explains Carmuega- is to
modify eating habits so as to increase the amount of iron that can be
absorbed in the organism’’
I.1 Among other things, it is necessary to combine small amounts of meat
with lentils, spinach, fresh fruit, vitamin C.
I.2 And to say goodbye to the traditional cup of tea or coffee after each meal.
In example (1), the dominant illocution (I) is followed by two specifications that expand
its content. The recommended action (to change eating habits) is broken down into specific
actions such as combining foods and quitting tea or coffee after meals. In the corpus,
specifications can be realized as directive illocutions, as in example (1), which is made
evident by the markers of obligation (the Spanish verbal periphrasis hay que + infinitive,
meaning it is necessary).
The reformulation action may be introduced by a discourse marker, as in the following
example:
(2)
[Si el virus aparece], se debe hacer un tratamiento de destrucción:
esto es, atacar las lesiones que produce. (Cları́n, Feb. 16, 1998)
[If the virus appears] a destruction treatment must be performed:
this is to say, attacking the lesions it produces.
In example (2), the reformulating action is introduced by esto es (this is to say), which
expresses a semantic equivalence between the reference expression and the paraphrase
(Gülich and Kotschi, 1987). This is a variation paraphrase. In the formulation of the
dominant illocution the writer uses a terminological construction (destruction treatment),
which is later reformulated by transforming the nominalization into an action clause. In this
way, the content of the illocution is made clearer.
Paraphrases can also serve as confirmation or reinforcement, which is termed
‘restatement’ in RST.
(3)
I. El primer paso, señalan los médicos, es hacer un diagnóstico y determinar
el origen de la alergia. [. . .] I.1 Lo principal, advierten los especialistas,
es hacer una consulta apenas se detectan los sı́ntomas. (Cları́n, June 8, 1998)
I. The first step, doctors point out, is to obtain a diagnosis and determine
the origin of the allergy.
[. . .] I.1 The most important thing, specialists warn, is to see a doctor as
soon as the symptoms are detected.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
821
In example (3), the variation paraphrase (Gülich and Kotschi, 1995) seems to carry
greater communicative force than the reference expression, due to the lexical selections.
Thus, the expression lo principal (the most important thing) seems to impose a greater
degree of obligation than el primer paso (the first step), since it indicates that the proposed
action is not only the first to be carried out but also the most important one. The directive
verb advierten (warn) is also stronger than señalan (point out). In spite of its greater
communicative force, the second illocution is subordinate to the first one, and its role is to
confirm and reinforce the dominant illocution.
Exemplification
According to Gülich and Kotschi (1995), exemplification is a non-reformulating
procedure because it is not motivated by the recognition of a communication trouble
source. However, in some cases, exemplification can solve a communicative
problem.
(4)
Otro error es creer que las plantas son inofensivas. Las tóxicas pueden causar
la muerte. ‘‘Por ejemplo –aclara el especialista–, el té de tilo se toma para
dormir o para relajarse. Y esto está muy bien. Pero pocos saben que si se
toman más de cinco tazas genera el efecto adverso: insomnio’’. (La Nación,
Oct. 6, 1999)
Another mistake is to believe that plants are inoffensive. Toxic plants can cause
death. ‘‘For example –explains the specialist– linden tea is drunk for sleeping
or relaxing. And that is very good. But few people know that drinking more
than five cups can lead to the opposite effect: insomnia’’.
(5)
‘‘Tienen que seguirse con un estricto control médico y durante un perı́odo
breve,por ejemplo, un mes.’’ (La Nación, Dec. 15, 1999)
‘‘They have to be followed up by a strict medical control and for a brief period,
for example, a month.’’
In the two fragments above, the examples constitute an instantiation of a general
concept, but they perform different functions in each case. The example in (4) formulates
the major and minor premises of a syllogism, the conclusion having been expressed in the
previous assertion. Here, exemplification is not motivated by a trouble source but rather by
the need to justify the warning, or to give evidence for the previous assertion. At the same
time, by offering a particular case of a general fact, it also contributes to understanding. In
this sense, exemplification contributes to a double purpose: facilitating understanding and
obtaining acceptance. In (5), on the other hand, the exemplification is only intended to
ensure understanding, by making the recommendation more precise.
Fictitious questions
Fictitious questions offer prominent information and give instructions as to how the
dominant illocution should be interpreted. Thus, they can be considered as one of the
functions that ensure understanding of the illocutionary purpose.
822
?
(6)
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
Cuál es el mejor tratamiento? Para Bravo, la hipnosis, en combinación con
la terapia cognitivo-conductual, ha demostrado ser bastante eficaz para
tratar esta patologı́a. (La Nación, May 13, 1998)
What is the best treatment? For Bravo, hypnosis, combined with cognitivebehavioral therapy, has proved to be quite efficient to treat this condition.
In the example above, the fictitious question helps to interpret the dominant illocution as
a recommendation, which could be reformulated as The best treatment is hypnosis.
Metapragmatic evaluations
Metapragmatic evaluations characterize a speech act which is introduced as quoted
speech.
(7)
[En cuanto a los suplementos dietarios, estos son considerados como alimentos
especiales. A diferencia de los medicamentos, no poseen indicaciones
terapéuticas]. Por su parte, la doctora Portela plantea una objeción a esta
distinción formal: ‘‘Los suplementos dietarios también son medicamentos’’
–advierte. (La Nación, Sept. 6, 1998)
[As regards dietary supplements, these are considered as special foods. Unlike
medicines, they do not have therapeutic prescriptions]. On the other hand,
doctor Portela raises an objection to this formal distinction: ‘‘Dietary
supplements are also medicines’’ –she warns.
In example (7), the writer indicates that the dominant illocution should be interpreted as
an objection to the information presented previously. The reporting verb indicates that the
quoted illocution should be interpreted as a warning. When the dominant illocution does
not include explicit markers of obligation, it is the reporting verb that gives an instruction
as to how it should be interpreted.
Thus, the comprehension-ensuring function can be realized in different ways. Some
of its realizations, such as fictitious questions and metapragmatic evaluations, seem to
appear more frequently in certain text types, for example in popularized science, where
writers assume that readers may have comprehension difficulties regarding the
complexity of informative content. Questions have not been found, for example, in the
corpus of business letters studied by Brandt and Rosengren. However, they do appear in
academic writing, where they may be used to engage the readers or to structure
information (Hyland, 2002).
4.1.2. Acceptance function
As mentioned above, we have distinguished four types of realizations of this function in
the corpus. The terms justification, enablement, concession, and purpose were chosen to
show the relationship between the supporting function and the dominant illocution: the
supporting function may justify or enable the writer to formulate the recommendation, may
show a situation that does not represent an obstacle to the formulation of the dominant
illocution, or may indicate the purpose of the action recommended in the dominant illocution.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
823
4.1.2.1. Justification function. The justification function gives the reasons that validate
the content of the dominant illocution, and, specifically, the recommended action.7 The
propositional content of the justification function can include benefits derived from
performing the suggested action, or negative consequences of not performing it. These
facts can be of retrospective nature, for example, a scientific demonstration of the efficacy
of the recommended action.
The justification function, which usually follows the dominant illocution, can be
realized as a causal clause or as an independent illocution.
(8)
‘‘[En estos casos], lo que hay que hacer es erradicar la bacteria, porque
puede llegar a producir una úlcera’’, señaló Musi. (Cları́n, March 23, 1998)
‘‘[In these cases] what needs be done is to eradicate the bacterium, because
it can cause an ulcer’’, Musi pointed out.
In example (8), the causal clause indicates a potential unfavorable consequence of not
performing the proposed action.
The justification function can also precede the dominant illocution, introduced in
Spanish by markers such as dado que or como (since or as).
(9)
Como el adicto difı́cilmente intenta buscar una solución, la familia puede
ayudarle a tomar conciencia de lo que le sucede, como paso previo a
una intervención psicoterapéutica. (La Nación, May 13, 1998)
Since the addict rarely tries to find a solution, the family can help him/her
become aware of what is going on, as a preliminary to psychotherapy
In (9), the content of the causal clause expresses a fact that justifies the recommendation.
This fact is not the cause of what is expressed in the dominant illocution, but rather the
cause of the recommendation. Note that in this example, the dominant illocution is an
implied recommendation.
Independent illocution: A statement following the dominant illocution can serve as a
justification even when there are no conjunctions expressing a causal relationship. In these
cases, it is the semantic content that contributes to this interpretation; the causal
relationship can be confirmed by a causal conjunction.
When the justification function is realized in an independent illocution, it bears more
communicative force. This is because, from the standpoint of syntax, the relation between
the dominant illocution and the justifying function is not hypotactic but paratactic. This
also makes possible a change of speaker, which can further enhance the communicative
force, as illustrated in the following example:
7
That is to say, it explains why an action is suggested. This function corresponds to the relation termed
‘Justification’ in RST. In this theory, ‘Justification’ and ‘Evidence’ form a subgroup of relations which involve the
reader’s attitude toward the nucleus. An evidence satellite is intended to increase the reader’s belief in the nuclear
material; a justification satellite is intended to increase the reader’s readiness to accept the writer’s right to present
the nuclear material (Mann and Thompson, 1988).
824
(10)
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
[Aunque mucha gente se alarma cuando ve que el mercurio del termómetro
trepa más allá de los niveles considerados normales], los médicos advierten
que no hay peligro. ‘‘Es muy raro que la temperatura suba a niveles nocivos’’,
señaló Wahren. (Cları́n, March 2, 1998)
[Although many people are alarmed when they see the mercury in the
thermometer reach levels above those considered normal], the doctors make
it clear that there is no danger. ‘‘It is very rare that temperature reaches
harmful levels’’, Wahren pointed out.
In (10), the justification function supports a comforting advice. The writer is not
trying to make the reader perform an action, but rather intends to calm him/her down by
denying the existence of a supposed risk. The example includes a change of speaker:
the advice is expressed by the reporter and the justification function by a specialist who
is quoted directly. Such recourse to authority enhances the communicative force.
The degree of certainty or reliability of the propositional content of the justifying
function can be reinforced by specific data, figures and, percentages.
(11)
Para algunos especialistas, la vacunación antigripal deberı́a haberse
transformado ya en una costumbre. Al respecto, un trabajo publicado por
el doctor Roberto Debbag –médico del hospital Garrahan y de Funcei,
Fundación Centro de Estudios Infectológicos– sobre la vacunación antigripal
en niños, revela que sobre su estimado de 700.000 posibles receptores,
solo 22.000 son inmunizados anualmente. (La Nación, May 19, 1999)
For some specialists, vaccination against flu should have already become
a habit. In this respect, a report published by doctor Roberto Debagg –a
physician at the Garrahan hospital and the Funcei [a private foundation dealing
with infectious diseases]– on flu vaccination in children, reveals that of an
estimated 700,000 potential candidates for vaccination, only 22,000 are
vaccinated yearly.
In the above example, the content of the justification function presents results of prior
investigations which serve as a justification, not for the recommendation but for the
presupposition that underlies it. In this case, the content of the justification function not
only states the reasons that justify the recommendation, but also brings evidence. Evidence
is not brought for the recommendation, but for an implicit assertion: ‘‘vaccination has not
yet become a habit’’. It can be said that justification and evidence are closely related, as
both are aimed at the reader’s acceptance of the communicative purpose.
4.1.2.2. Enablement function. In the enablement function, the propositional content
enables or authorizes the speaker to make a recommendation. Through the enablement
relation, one event creates the sufficient, though not necessary, conditions, for another
event to take place (Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981). This function precedes the directive
illocution and favors the acceptance of the speaker’s purpose by offering information about
a problem that can be solved or prevented by the action suggested in the dominant
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
825
illocution. The propositional content includes unpleasant facts that relate to the problem at
issue.8
The effect link can be made explicit by connectives such as por eso or por lo tanto
(that’s why, therefore), which present the advice as a conclusion, thus increasing its
communicative force.
(12)
Además de la jaqueca y la cefalea tensional, el dolor de cabeza puede ser
consecuencia de problemas en la vista, de un tumor o alguna otra enfermedad.
‘‘Por eso, es importante un buen diagnóstico inicial [para elegir el
tratamiento correcto’’], concluyó Salvat. (Cları́n, March, 30, 1998)
Besides migraine and tension cephalea, headache can be a consequence of
sight problems, a tumor or some other disorder. ‘‘For this reason, a good
initial diagnosis is important [in order to choose the right treatment’’],
Salvat concluded.
(13)
‘‘La pı́ldora es sólo una de las tres patas de un tratamiento efectivo contra la
obesidad –aclaró Jebb–. Debe pensarse como parte de un plan integral que
incluye una dieta baja en calorı́as y la disminución del tiempo destinado a
actividades sedentarias.’’ (Cları́n, June 14, 1999)
‘‘Pills are just one of the three basic elements of an effective treatment against
obesity –explained Jebb–. They must be considered as part of a comprehensive
plan that includes a low calory diet and less time spent in sedentary activities.’’
In example (12), the informative content of the enablement function (the causes of
headache, listed from the least to the most serious ones) leads to the recommendation. The
Spanish connective por eso (for this reason) presents the recommendation as a conclusion,
thus contributing to its acceptance. In (13), there is no explicit connection between the
enablement function and the dominant illocution, but the relationship can be adequately
paraphrased using a connective such as for this reason.
4.1.2.3. Concessive function. The concessive function is an assertion preceding the
dominant illocution, the propositional content of which denotes a fact or a state of affairs
that is rejected or questioned by the dominant illocution. The contrast relationship between
the dominant illocution and the supporting function can be expressed in Spanish by aunque
or pero (although or but). From the argumentative point of view, the concessive function
contains the less important argument, the main argument being in the dominant illocution.
The concessive function contributes to the acceptance of the dominant illocution by
highlighting its content as new and contrary to what is known. Such contribution is not
derived from its informative content, as in the case of the justification and enablement
functions, but from the type of rhetorical strategy (Ducrot, 1984).9
8
This function may correspond to what is termed ‘Solutionhood’ in RST, whose intended effect is that the
reader recognizes the situation presented in the nucleus as a solution to the problem presented in the satellite
(Mann et al., 1992).
9
RST considers a ‘Concession’ relation whose intended effect is to increase the reader’s positive regard for the
situation presented in the nucleus (Mann and Thompson, 1988). In this sense, we can say that there is a
correspondence between the two functions.
826
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
This function is specially used to support warnings or comforting advice. In warnings,
the supporting function can present a fact as beneficial while the dominant illocution
qualifies it as unfavorable or potentially dangerous. The opposite is true in comforting
advice: the facts expressed in the concessive function are described as unfavorable while
the dominant illocution presents them as beneficial or harmless. In other cases the contrast
is not explicit, as the propositional content of the concessive function expresses a fact
leading to a conclusion that is rejected or restrained by the main illocution.
(14)
‘‘Este medicamento permite aumentar sustancialmente la densidad ósea de
la columna, pero debe ser administrado por especialistas, [ya que la distancia
que separa la dosis útil de la que puede ser perjudicial es muy pequeña’’],
advierte Vega. (La Nación, Sept. 15, 1999)
‘‘This medicine permits to increase substantially the bone density of the spine,
but it must be prescribed by a specialist, [since the distance separating the
useful dose from the potentially harmful one is very small’’], Vega warns.
(15)
‘‘Aunque se suele dar vulgarmente a la más corriente tristeza puerperal el
nombre de depresión posparto, es importante distinguir entre ambas’’ –dice
Marı́a Eugenia Depetris, especialista en embarazo, parto y puerperio de la clı́nica
Bazterrica. (La Nación, March 24, 1999).
‘‘Although the most common puerperium sadness is popularly known as postchildbirth depression, it is important to distinguish between them’’ –says Marı́a
Eugenia Depetris, a specialist in pregnancy, childbirth, and postnatal conditions
of the Bazterrica clinic.
In example (14), the directive illocution denies a supposition that might be in the
reader’s mind, viz., that the drug has no risks. The directive illocution does not exclude the
content of the preceding statement, but rather constrains it. In example (15), the fact
expressed in the concessive clause is rejected by the directive illocution, establishing a
contrast between popular and expert knowledge.
(16)
Benetucci coincidió en que ‘‘la fiebre se torna peligrosa cuando pasa los 41
grados. Y cuando llega a 42 puede llegar a producir la muerte’’. En esos
momentos, la persona siente embotamiento cerebral, está aturdida, puede
llegar a manifestar delirios. Pero el médico aclaró que estas son
‘‘situaciones de excepción’’, en personas que padecen enfermedades muy
graves. (Cları́n, March 2, 1998)
Benetucci agreed that ‘‘fever becomes dangerous when the temperature is
above 41 [106.8 F] degrees. And when it reaches 42 [107.8 F], it can lead to
death’’. In such situations, the person feels cerebral drowsiness, confusion
and can even be delirious. But the doctor explained that these are
‘‘exceptional situations’’, in people with very serious conditions.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
827
In the above example, the content of the assertions expresses unfavorable facts that lead
to the conclusion that ‘‘fever is harmful’’. However, the dominant illocution, a comforting
advice, constrains the validity of such conclusion.
In brief, the concessive function plays an important role by introducing information
which can be part of the reader’s beliefs, only to be rejected by the dominant illocution, to
be restrained by it, or being shown showed to be irrelevant. By using the contrastive
connective, the writer highlights the main argument and at the same time presents him/
herself as someone who is aware of the reader’s knowledge.
4.1.2.4. Purpose-indicating clauses. Purpose-indicating clauses, when included in the
content of the dominant illocution, also contribute to the acceptance of the communicative
purpose. The purpose-indicating clause presupposes a causal relationship, since the main
clause expresses a cause or condition for the facts expressed in the purpose clause,
implying that the performance of the recommended action is a necessary condition for
obtaining the result.
The facts expressed in the purpose clause are often of prospective nature, hence the use
of the subjunctive or the infinitive in Spanish. The purpose construction can be in the initial
position, in some cases as part of the modus, or in post-verbal position, as a component of
the dictum. Position seems to affect its contribution to the illocutionary purpose. In fact,
Thompson (1985) considers that initial purpose clause and final purpose clause are two
quite different constructions.
Many directive illocutions in the corpus begin with a purpose-indicating construction
realized by a purpose clause. The initial purpose clause ‘‘functions to state a ‘problem’
within the context of expectations raised by the preceding discourse, to which the following
material (often many clauses) provides a solution’’ (Thompson, 1985: 55). Initial position
of these clauses indicates a thematizing intention (Galan Rodrı́guez, 1999).
(17)
Para luchar contra estos miedos, la Asociación Americana de Psiquiatrı́a
recomienda la terapia conductista [. . .].
(Cları́n, June 21, 1999)
In order to fight these fears, the American Association of Psychiatry
recommends behavioral therapy [. . .]
In example (17), the purpose clause is in the initial position. Besides indicating the
purpose of the dominant illocution, it anticipates its content and, in this way not only favors
acceptance, but also contributes to understanding. Purpose-indicating clauses in initial
position mark the introduction of a new sub-topic and sometimes the beginning of a new
illocutionary hierarchy. Purpose can also be expressed in a prepositional phrase or in a
relative clause in the construction encoding the illocutionary force.
When the purpose-indicating function is in post-verbal position, its content is usually
more specific. It states the purpose for which the action named in the immediately
preceding clause is performed (Thompson, 1985).
(18)
Y no caer en la automedicación, para que no se siga ampliando la lista de
engripados y el virus no se vuelva cada vez más resistente.
(Cları́n, April 13, 1998)
828
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
And [people should] not resort to self-medication, so as not to enlarge the
list of persons with flu and make the virus each time more resistant.
In (18), the purpose clause expresses the reason for performing the recommended action
and serves as its justification. The semantic content is specific and closely related to the
recommended action.
In summary, initial purpose clauses perform a thematizing and anticipating function. As
their content is more general, their scope is broader and can serve as a support for several
directive illocutions. On the other hand, purpose-indicating units in post-verbal position are
more specific and refer to the results that will be obtained if the recommended action is
performed.
4.1.3. Facilitating function
The facilitating function contributes to make the performance of the proposed action
possible by offering information, thus making it easy for the reader to carry out the
recommended action.
(19)
[Para prevenir la toxoplasmosis], los felinos deben ser desparasitados cada
4 meses. En el Instituto Pasteur, la desparasitación es gratuita.
(La Nación, July 14, 1999)
[To prevent toxoplasmosis], cats have to be treated for parasites every
4 months. At the Pasteur Institute, this treatment is free.
(20)
Los médicos agregaron que ese pinchazo –que cuesta entre 22 y 25 pesos y que
cubre el PAMI y muchas obras sociales– también es importante para las
personas, de todas las edades, que sufren problemas bronquiales, respiratorios,
cardı́acos o enfermedades como diabetes.
(Cları́n, May 24, 1999)
The doctors added that this injection –which costs between 22 and 25 pesos
[about US$ 7] and is covered by the PAMI Foundation [more or less corresponding to Medicaid in the US, for elderly people] and many organizations
providing social relief– is also important for people of all ages suffering from
bronchial, respiratory, and heart problems or conditions such as diabetes.
In these examples, the information offered contributes to the success of the
illocutionary purpose by facilitating the performance of the suggested action. The
recommendation would not be successful if it could not be followed because of its cost or
for other practical reasons. It must be noted that the information offered by this function
is strongly linked to context; that is to say, it applies only to a particular audience at a
particular time and place.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
829
4.1.4. Empathy function
The empathy function serves to establish a friendly relationship with the reader. By
empathy, I mean ‘‘the capacity to participate affectively in another person’s reality’’.10 This
function is not directly linked to the illocutionary purpose but is context-oriented. The
writer intends to shorten the distance to the reader, create a feeling of sympathy and, at the
same time, persuade him/her to perform the recommended action.
This function can be realized by a subordinate clause, a prepositional phrase, or an
independent illocution. Like the facilitation function, the empathy function is not
characterized by a particular type of connective, but is rather identified by its semantic content.
(21)
[Para evitar la toxocariasis], es imprescindible desparasitar periódicamente a
los animales, [. . .] y, aunque no siempre sea fácil resistirse a esas
manifestaciones de afecto, evitar que den besitos a los habitantes de la casa.
(La Nación, July 14, 1999)
[To prevent toxocariasis], it is necessary to treat the animals periodically for
parasites, [. . .] and, although it is not always easy to resist such
manifestations of affect, prevent them from nuzzling the people in the house.
(22)
Los especialistas recomiendan modificar el ritmo de vida, comer despacio, evitar
tensiones. Casi una misión imposible.
(Cları́n, March 23, 1998)
Specialists recommend modifying life style, eating slowly and avoiding stress.
Almost a ‘mission impossible’.
In these examples, the difficulties that might be encountered in performing the
recommended action are acknowledged by the writer. It must be noted, however, that in
example (22), the empathy function can only be performed by a speaker different from the
one making the recommendation; otherwise, there would be a contradiction.
By means of the empathy function, the writer not only sympathizes with the hardships
the reader may encounter, but can also share with him/her a favorable situation, as in the
following example:
(23)
No se opone tampoco, para deleite de muchos, a la ingesta de huevos fritos.
(La Nación, Dec. 15, 1999)
He is not opposed either, to the joy of many, to the intake of fried eggs.
Whereas an obligation can be arduous for the reader, permission is usually well
received. In (23), the empathy function, included as a comment in the dominant illocution,
refers to the possible positive reaction of the reader vis-à-vis the permission to eat a type of
food that many enjoy but is usually banned from healthy diets.
Empathy can also be expressed in relation to the problem that motivates the
recommendation.
10
Moliner (1998); my translation.
830
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
Table 1
Supporting function types, realization procedures, content and equivalence with RTS relations
Function type
Subsidiary
Comprehension
ensuring
Acceptance
Realization Procedures
Content
Equivalence with
RTS relations
Specification
Exemplification
Fictitious questions
Metapragmatic evaluation
Roughly, the same semantic
content as the
dominant illocution
Background,
elaboration
Justification
Favorable (or unfavorable)
consequences of (not) performing
the recommended action
Unfavorable facts that enable
the writer to formulate the
dominant illocution.
Facts leading to a result
questioned or restrained by
the dominant illocution
Favorable facts resulting
from performing the
recommended action.
Justify, motivation,
evidence
Additional information
Information helping to perform
the recommended action.
Enablement
Independent illocution
Subordinate clause
Lexical items
Subjective information;
the writer sympathizes
with the reader
Evaluation,
interpretation
Enablement
Concession
Purpose-indicating
clause
Facilitation
Complementary
Empathy
(24)
Motivation, solutionhood
Concession, contrast
Purpose
El traumatólogo afirmó que lo más importante para evitar esos dolores,
que pueden convertirse en un verdadero martirio, es la actividad fı́sica dos o
tres veces por semana.
(Cları́n, May 17, 1999)
The trauma specialist maintained that the most important thing to do in
order to prevent pain, which can become a true calvary, is physical exercise
two or three times a week.
In (24), the discomfort represented by the problem is acknowledged in the relative
clause in order to express empathy with those afflicted by pain. Table 1 summarizes the
supporting functions types above discussed, their realization procedures, the type of
information they contain, as well as the equivalence with the relations specified in RTS.
The content of the justification, enablement, and purpose functions expresses favorable
consequences that may derive from the proposed action, or unfavorable consequences that
may derive from not performing the recommended action. The content of the concessive
functions expresses favorable or unfavorable facts that are neutralized or restrained by the
dominant illocution.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
831
Table 2
Frequency of supporting functions
Functions
Subsidiary, objective 1—comprehension
Frequencies
35 (10.7%)
Subsidiary, objective 2—acceptance
Justification
Enablement
Concession
Purpose
Subsidiary, objective 3—facilitation
Complementary
Empathy
Total
119
75
36
49
(36.3%)
(22.9%)
(11.0%)
(14.9%)
5 (1.5%)
9 (2.7%)
328 (100%)
4.2. Frequency of occurrence of supporting functions
In order to assess what objectives are most relevant for the writer to reach his/her
communicative purpose, the frequency of occurrence of the different supporting function
types was determined for the studied corpus. The results are summarized in Table 2.
In the corpus, 85.1% of the supporting functions were of the subsidiary type, geared
toward realizing Objective 2, Acceptance. Of the acceptance functions, the justification
function was the most frequent (36.3%). This indicates that the writer is mainly interested
in obtaining the reader’s acceptance, and, furthermore, attempts to offer reasons that justify
this acceptance. It also fits in well with reports that in doctor–patient oral interactions, the
more information offered by the doctor, the greater the acceptance by the patient (Heritage
and Sefi, 1992).
4.3. Supporting functions according to the type of speaker
Having determined the frequency of the different supporting functions, we have
considered who takes responsibility for these functions. In other words, we tried to
determine whether the functions are realized as a direct quotation of the information
source, as an indirect quotation, or if they are formulated by the reporter without any
reference to the information source. We assume that the reporter will choose to quote
directly those utterances that are assigned more communicative relevance and that include
the support of expert authority. Table 3 shows the frequency of supporting functions
formulated as direct or indirect quotation of the information source or formulated by the
reporter.
As Table 3 shows, the justification function is presented as a direct quotation in 70%
of the cases. In contrast, the comprehension and empathy functions tend to be formulated
by the reporter. (In one case, it is the expert, in a direct quotation, who seems to express
empathy for the reader.) Significant differences were determined by the x2 test:
x2 = 35.3; p < 0.001, which confirms a significant association between type of function
and speaker.
832
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
Table 3
Frequency of supporting functions according to the type of speaker
Function
Expert direct quotation
Comprehension
11 (31.4%)
Acceptance
Justification
Enablement
Concession
Purpose
84
40
13
21
Expert indirect quotation
4 (11.4%)
Reporter
20 (57.1%)
16 (13.4%)
6 (8.0%)
5 (13.9%)
18 (36.7%)
Facilitation
2 (40.0%)
1 (20.0%)
2 (40.0%)
5 (100%)
Empathy
1 (11.1%)
0
8 (88.9%)
9 (100%)
106 (32.3%)
328 (100%)
172 (53.4%)
50 (15.2%)
(15.9%)
(38.7%)
(50.0%)
(20.4%)
35 (100%)
(70.6%)
(53.3%)
(36.1%)
(42.9%)
Total
19
29
18
10
Total
119
75
36
49
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
(100%)
The justification function, which is strongly associated with direct quotation of the
expert’s words, offers reasons for following a piece of advice. These reasons are based on
knowledge, experience, or clinical investigations showing the risks and benefits of certain
treatments and prevention methods. Therefore, the justification function requires, like the
directive illocution, the support of the expert’s authority.
5. Conclusions
We have analyzed supporting functions in the instructive portions of popularizing
medical texts, and looked at how these functions were grouped in accordance with the
writer’s goals, but always subordinated to the main communicative purpose: that the reader
carry out the recommended action. Thus we could distinguish among functions aimed at
achieving comprehension of the main purpose, along with its acceptance, as well as
facilitating the action in question.
Functions aimed at achieving acceptance showed the highest frequency, which
may indicate that the writer builds his/her text in such a way that the reader will
primarily accept the recommendations in order to carry out the proposed action. In
addition, when the performance of recommended actions involves some degree of
difficulty, the writer expresses sympathy with the reader by using the supporting function
of empathy. The latter may be considered a characteristic feature of popularizing medical
texts, as it does not appear, for example, in medical leaflets accompanying prescription
drugs.
Supporting information in commands, besides favoring acceptance, has been associated
with democratic contexts, while direct instructions with minimal support information seem
to be typical of authoritarian contexts (Iedema, 1997). The high frequency of functions
oriented to obtaining reader acceptance of the communicative purpose also seems to be
related to textual class. It can be assumed that a cooking recipe or an instruction book do
not require justification for every instruction. However, in medical texts, justification seems
to be necessary to ensure acceptance of an advice which could otherwise be interpreted as
an intrusion into private life.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
833
The frequency of justification functions expressed as a direct quotation from the expert
was observed to be very high. This suggests that justification requires the support of an
expert and that such support is of vital importance in these texts. On the other hand, the
comprehension and empathy functions do not need the authoritative support of the expert,
so they are performed almost exclusively by the reporter. The comprehension-ensuring
function is related to the role of the reporter as mediator between the expert and the reader,
in this case by reformulating the expert discourse so as to make it accessible.
In sum, in order to achieve acceptance of recommendations, the reporter not only
supports the main illocutions but he/she lets the expert speak, when the linguistic activity
performed requires an authorized voice.11
Acknowledgments
This article paper is based on chapter 5 of my doctoral dissertation. I wish to thank my
advisor, Guiomar Ciapuscio, and Teun van Dijk for guidance, helpful comments, and
suggestions. Also, I thank Norma S. Rezzano for the English translation, and Corina
Courtis for her comments and careful reading of the English version. I am grateful to the
referees, whose comments helped to improve this work. And I am also grateful to the
editor, Jacob Mey, whose exhaustive editing has enhanced this article.
References
Abelen, Eric, Redeker, Gisela, Thompson, Sandra, 1993. The rhetorical structure of US-American and Dutch
fund-raising letters. Text 13 (3), 323–350.
Beaugrande, Robert de, Dressler, Wolfgang, 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. Longman, London & New
York.
Brandt, Margareta, Rosengren, Inger, 1992. Zur Illokutionstruktur von Texten. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 86, 9–51.
Brown, P. y, Levinson S. 1987. Politeness, Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Caffi, Claudia, 1999. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics 31 (7), 881–909.
Calsamiglia, Helena, López Ferrero, Carmen, 2001. Polifonı́a en textos periodı́sticos con información cientı́fica.
Lengua, discurso, texto (I Simposio Internacional de Análisis del Discurso), Visor Libros, Madrid, pp. 2647–
2664.
Calsamiglia, Helena, López Ferrero, Carmen, 2003. Role and position of scientific voices: reported speech in the
media. Discourse Studies 5 (2), 147–173.
Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1991. La expresión del tema en textos de divulgación cientı́fica. Analecta Malacitana 14 (2),
335–346.
Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1993a. Reformulación textual: el caso de las noticias de divulgación cientı́fica. Revista
Argentina de Lingüı́stica 9 (1/2), 69–116.
Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1993b. Wissenschaft für den Laien: Untersuchungen zu populärwissenschaftlichen
Nachrichten aus Argentinien. Romanistischer Verlag, Bonn.
Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 2000. Hacia una tipologı́a del discurso especializado. Discurso y Sociedad 2 (2), 39–70.
11
As to typology, the type and frequency of supporting functions could be used as a basis for establishing
different text classes offering recommendations. This matter must be left for future research.
834
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 2003. Formulation and reformulation procedures in verbal interactions between experts and
(semi-)laypersons. Discourse Studies 5 (2), 207–233.
Cicourel, Aaron V., 1985. Doctor-patient discourse. Discourse Analysis in Society, vol. 4. Academic Press,
London, pp. 193–202.
Dı́az Martı́nez, Felix, 1999. Asimetrı́a profesional en la consulta de oncologı́a: algunas constricciones conversacionales de la clı́nica. Discurso y Sociedad 1 (4), 35–68.
Dubois, Betty L., 1986. From ‘‘New England Journal of Medicine’’ and ‘‘Journal of the American Medical
Association’’ through the ‘‘Associated Press’’ to the local newspaper: scientific translation for the laity. In:
Bungarten, T. (Ed.), Wissenschaftssprachen und Gesellschaft: Aspekte der Wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation und des Wissenstransfers in der heutigen Zeit. Akademion, Hamburg, pp. 243–253.
Ducrot, Oswald, 1984. El decir y lo dicho. Paidós Comunicación, Barcelona.
Galan Rodrı́guez, Carmen, 1999. La subordinación causal y final. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, V. (Eds.), Gramática
Descriptiva de la Lengua Española 3. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid, pp. 3597–3642.
Gülich, Elizabeth, Kotschi, Thomas, 1987. Les actes de reformulation dans la consultation La Dame de Caluire.
In: Bange, P. (Ed.), L’analyse des interactions verbales. La Dame de Caluire: une consultation 18. Lang,
Berne/Frankfurt/New York/Paris, pp. 15–81.
Gülich, Elizabeth, Kotschi, Thomas, 1995. Discourse production in oral communication. In: Quasthoff, U.M.
(Ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Gülich, Elizabeth, 2003. Conversational techniques used in transferring knowledge between medical experts and
non-experts. Discourse Studies 5 (2), 235–263.
Halliday, Michael A.K., 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold, London.
Harvey, Ana Maria, 1995. El fenómeno de la reformulación del discurso cientı́fico. Lenguas Modernas 22, 105–
112.
Heinemann, W., Viehweger, Dieter, 1991. Textlinguistik. Eine Einfürung. Niemeyer, Tübingen.
Heritage, J., Sefi, S., 1992. Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions
between health visitors and first-time mothers. In: Drew, P.s, Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in
Institutional Settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 359–417.
Hyland, Ken, 2002. What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text 22 (4), 529–557.
Iedema, Rick, 1997. The language of administration: organizing human activity in formal institutions. In: Christie,
F., Martin, J.R. (Eds.), Genre and Institutions. Continuum, London/New York, pp. 73–100.
Jones, Linda K., 1977. Theme in English Expository Discourse. Jupiter Press, Lake Bluff, IL.
Loffler-Laurian, Anne Marie, 1983. Typologie des discours scientifiques: deux approches. Etudes de Linguistique
Appliquée 51, 8–20.
Loffler-Laurian, Anne Marie, 1984. Vulgarisation scientifique: formulation, reformulation, traduction. Langue
Française 64, 109–125.
Lucy, John, 1993. Reflexive Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Mann, William, Matthiessen, Christian, Thompson, Sandra, 1992. Rhetorical Structure Theory and text analysis.
In: Mann, W., Thompson, S. (Eds.), Discourse description: diverse linguistic analyses of a fund-raising text.
John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, pp. 39–78.
Mann, William, Thompson, Sandra, 1988. Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text
organization. Text 8 (3), 243–281.
Méndez Garcı́a de Paredes, Elena, 1999. La literalidad de la cita en los textos periodı́sticos. Revista Española de
Lingüı́stica 30 (1), 147–167.
Moirand, Sophie, 1997. Formes discursives de la diffusion des savoirs dans les médias. Hermès(21), 33–44.
Moirand, Sophie, 2003. Communicative and cognitive dimensions of discourse on science in the French mass
media. Discourse Studies 5 (2), 175–206.
Moliner, Maria, 1998. Diccionario de Uso del Español. Gredos, Madrid.
Mortureux, Marie Françoise, 1982. Paraphrase et métalangage dans le dialogue de vulgarisation. Langue
Française(53), 48–61.
Mortureux, Marie Françoise, 1985. Linguistique et vulgarisation scientifique. Information sur les sciences sociales
24 (4), 825–845.
Motsch, W., Pasch, R., 1987. Illokutive Handlungen. In: Motsch, W. (Ed.), Satz, Text, spracshliche Handlung.
Studia Grammatica XXV. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 11–80.
S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835
835
Myers, Greg, 1991. Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse
Processes 14 (1), 1–26.
Myers, Greg, 1994. Narratives of science and nature in popularizing molecular genetics. In: Coulthard, M. (Ed.),
Advances in Written Text and Analysis. Routledge, London.
Myers, Greg, 2003. Discourse studies of scientific popularization: questioning the boundaries. Discourse Studies 5
(2), 265–279.
Rudolph, Elisabeth, 1988. Connective relations, connective expressions, connective structures. In: Petöfi, J. (Ed.),
Text and Discourse Constitution: Empirical Aspects, Theoretical Approaches. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New
York.
Rudolph, Elisabeth, 1996. Contrast, Adversative and Concessive Expressions on Sentence and Text Level, vol. 23.
Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Thompson, Sandra, 1985. Grammar and written discourse: initial vs. final purpose clauses in English. Text 5 (1/2),
55–84.
van Dijk, Teun A., 1977. Texto y contexto. Cátedra, Madrid.
Varttala, Teppo, 1999. Remarks on the communicative functions of hedging in popular scientific and specialist
research articles on medicine. English for Specific Purposes 18 (2), 177–200.
Susana Gallardo is a Professor at the Department of Exact and Natural Sciences of the University of Buenos
Aires, Argentina, where she teaches postgraduate courses on academic and scientific writing. She received her
PhD in 2003. The topic of her doctoral dissertation is ‘‘Medical texts in the press: a linguistic-textual analysis of
recommendation’’. She is a member of Termtex, a research group devoted to the investigation of specialized texts.
She has published several articles in the journals Discurso y Sociedad, Lingüı́stica Española Actual, Revista de
Lingüı́stica Teórica y Aplicada, and Terminology.