Email this article 
The Topos of “Precaution” in the German Discourse on Assistance to Ukraine: Iconic Reproduction through Linguistics and Pragmatics / O topos da “precaução” no discurso alemão sobre a assistência à Ucrânia: reprodução icônica por meio da linguística e da pragmática
Abstract
Abstract: The study of mitigation in political discourse deserves the closest attention since it concerns the manipulative dimension of politics in the modeling of public consciousness. This research is aimed at identifying linguistic and pragmatic mitigators associated with the topos of Precaution and its manifesting strategies in the discourse of assistance to Ukraine. It reached the main finding about the correlation of mitigators with the implementation of discursive strategies mediated by the influence of bushes, hedges, and shields on the illocution of speech acts. Since the illocution is influenced not only by hedges distinguished by this criterion, but also by other types of mitigators, we have introduced, in addition to the propositional, illocutionary, and deictic coordinates of the utterance, an additional criterion for the distribution of mitigators – their correlation with discursive strategies. Bushes implement the strategy of reducing the speaker’s responsibility for the asserted facts, promises – indirect commissives and recommendations – implicit directives by triggering conventional implicatures that imply the conditions for these acts feasibility. Shields transfer, generalize or depersonalize the speaker’s responsibility for assertive facts, implicit promises and indirect recommendations, “blurring” the deixis to a denotative situation. Hedges in assertives transfer responsibility to the sphere of subjective epistemic modality with increasing probability instead of the certainty about what is being asserted. In directives, hedges generalize / depersonalize the speaker’s responsibility thereby intersecting with the functional scope of shields. Polyfunctional mitigators implement several discursive strategies. The article specifies each group of mitigators in terms of its constituent linguistic devices.
Resumo: O estudo da mitigação no discurso político merece a maior atenção, pois diz respeito à dimensão manipuladora da política na modelagem da consciência pública. A pesquisa visa identificar mitigadores linguísticos e pragmáticos associados ao topos da Precaução e suas estratégias de manifestação no discurso da assistência à Ucrânia. O estudo chegou à principal conclusão sobre a correlação dos mitigadores com a implementação de estratégias discursivas mediadas pela influência de arbustos, sebes e escudos na ilocução dos atos de fala. Como a ilocução é influenciada não apenas pelo critério de cerca (hedges), mas também por outros tipos de mitigadores, introduzimos, além das coordenadas proposicionais, ilocucionárias e dêiticas do enunciado, um critério adicional para a distribuição dos mitigadores – sua correlação com as estratégias discursivas. Os arbustos implementam a estratégia de reduzir a responsabilidade do locutor pelos fatos afirmados, promessas – comissivas indiretas e recomendações – diretivas implícitas, acionando implicaturas convencionais que implicam as condições para a viabilidade desses atos. Os escudos transferem, generalizam ou despersonalizam a responsabilidade do locutor por fatos assertivos, promessas implícitas e recomendações indiretas, “embaçando” a dêixis para uma situação denotativa. Cerca (hedges) em assertivas transferem a responsabilidade para a esfera da modalidade epistêmica subjetiva com probabilidade crescente em vez da certeza sobre o que está sendo afirmado. Nas diretivas, os cerca (hedges) generalizam/despersonalizam a responsabilidade do locutor, cruzando-se com o escopo funcional dos shields. Os mitigadores polifuncionais implementam várias estratégias discursivas. O artigo especifica cada grupo de mitigadores em termos de seus dispositivos linguísticos constituintes.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
BACH, K. Saying, meaning, and implicating. In: Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K.M. (eds.). The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 23-45. Available from: . Access on: 10 Mar. 2018.
BACHMANN, К. Über das Verhältnis, das wir zu Russland nicht haben werden. Berliner Zeitung, 08 January 2023. Available from: . Access on: 20 Feb. 2023.
BRAUN, D. Implicating Questions. Mind and Language, Hoboken, v. 26, n. 5, p. 574-595, 2011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01431.x
CAFFI, C. On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, v. 31, n. 7, p. 881-909, 1999. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8
CAFFI, C. Mitigation. In: K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Elsevier, 2006. p. 171–175.
DEMIR, C. Hedging and academic writing: an analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, Konya, v. 14, n. 4, p. 74-92, 2018. Available from: . Access on: 20 Feb. 2023.
DER SPIEGEL. There Cannot Be a Nuclear War. Interview with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, conducted by Melanie Amann and Martine Knobbe, 22 April 2022. Available from: . Access on: 25 Apr. 2022.
FAIRCLOUGH, N. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman, 1995. Available from: . Access on: 15 Jun. 2021.
FILLMORE, Ch. J. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club, 1975. Available from: . Access on: 15 Jun. 2021.
FRASER, B. Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 4, n. 4, p. 341-350, 1980. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6
FUNTOWICZ, S. O., RAVETZ, J. R. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy. Theory and Decision. Library Series A: Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences, v. 15. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0621-1
GIORA, R., FEIN, O., GANZI, J., LEVI, N. A., & SABAH, H. On negation as mitigation: The case of negative irony. Discourse Processes, Oxford, v. 39, n. 1, p. 81-100, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3901_3
GRATCH, J., MARSELLA, S., MARTINOVSKI, B. Mitigation Theory: An Integrated Approach. Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, v. 27, 2005. University of Southern California. Available from: . Access on: 10 Sept. 2022.
GRICE, H. P. Logic and Conversation. In: Cole, P., Morgan, J. L. (eds.). Syntax and Semantics, v. 3, Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press, 1975. p. 41-58, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003
HART, Ch., CAP, P. Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London/New York: Bloomsbury, 2014.
HAVERKATE, H. Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, Antwerpen, v. 2, n.4, p. 505-522, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav
HEIM, I. Presupposition projection and the semantics of attitude verbs. Journal of semantics, Oxford, v. 9, p. 183-222, 1992. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/9.3.183.
HEMICKER, L. Mehrheit der Deutschen fürchtet russischen Atomschlag. Frankfurter Allgemeine, Frankfurt, 17 October 2022. Available from: . Access on: 15 Jan. 2023.
HINKEL, E. Hedging, inflating, and persuading in L2 academic writing. Applied Language Learning, Monterey, v. 15, n. 1, 2, p. 29-53, 2005. Available from: . Access on: 15 Jan. 2023.
HOLMES, J. Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v.8, n. 3, p. 345-365, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.
KAISER, M. Uncertainty and Precaution 2: The Precautionary Principle and its relevance to science. Global Bioethics, Oxford, v. 17, n. 1, p. 81-92, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/11287462.2004.10800845.
KINZIG, A., STARRETT, D., ARROW, K., ANIYAR, S. et al. Coping With Uncertainty: A Call for a New Science-Policy Forum. Ambio, Stockholm, v. 32, n. 5, p. 330-335, 2003. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1639/0044-7447(2003)032[0330:CWUACF]2.0.CO;2.
KIENPOINTNER, M. Alltagslogik. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-holzboog, 1992. Available from: . Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KINKARTZ, S. Why Germany hesitates on sending battle tanks to Ukraine, FOCUS, Kyiv, 23 January 2023. Available from: . Access on: 5 Feb. 2023.
KRASTEV, I., MARK, L. Peace versus Justice: The coming European split over the war in Ukraine, The European Council on Foreign Relations, Berlin, 15 June 2022. Available from: . Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KRAVCHENKO, N., PROKOPCHUK, M., POZHAR, A., ROZHKOV, Y., & KOZYAREVYCH-ZOZULYA, L. Illocutionary Pragmatic Adaptation Challenge: Ukrainian Translations of English-language Soft Law Texts. Amazonia Investiga, Florencia, v. 11, n. 49, p. 267-276, 2022a. DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2022.49.01.29.
KRAVCHENKO, N., CHAIKA, O., KRYKNITSKA, I., LETUNOVSKA, I., YUDENKO, O. Commissive Modality of International Legal Discourse: An Implicit Mitigation of the Bindingness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, London, v. 12, n. 6, p. 1039-1047, 2022b. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1206.03.
KRAVCHENKO, N., PASTERNAK, T., KOROTKA, S. Deontic modality in epideictic discourse: Speech acts facet (based on COVID-associated texts). Cogito. Multidisciplinary research journal, Bucharest, v. 13, n.2, p. 167–184, 2021. Available from: . Access on: 15 Sept. 2022.
KRAVCHENKO, N. Illocution of direct speech acts via conventional implicature and semantic presupposition. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow, Trnava, v. II, n. 1, p. 128-168, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lart-2017-0004.
KURENKOVA, O. “Leopards” for ZSU – torment for Sholtz. Why is Germany so cautious in supporting Ukraine? Ukrainian Pravda, Kyiv, 28 January 2023. Available from: . Access on: 1 Feb. 2023.
OXFORD Learner’s Dictionaries. Available from: . Access on: 10 Sep. 2022.
PERELMAN, C., OLBRECHTS-TYTECA, L. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dam: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969.
POTTS, C. Presupposition and implicature. In: Lappin, S., Fox, Ch. Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Contemporary Semantics. 2 ed., Hoboken: Shalom Lappin, Backwell, 2014. Available from: . Access on: 20 Sept. 2022.
POTTS, C. The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
PRINCE, E. F., FRADER, J., & BOSK, C. On hedging in physician-physician discourse. In: DiPietro, R. J. (ed.) Linguistics and the professions. 9 ed., 1982. Hillsdale: Ablex, p. 83-97.
REISIGL, M. The Discourse-Historical Approach. In: Flowerdew, J., Richardson, J. E. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies, Oxford: Routledge, 2017. p.44-59.
REISIGL, M., WODAK, R. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA). In: Wodak, R.; Meyer, M. (eds). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. 2. ed. India Pvt Ltd New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 2008. p. 87-121. Available from: . Access on: 20 Sept. 2022.
RICHARDSON, J. E. (Mis)Representing Islam: the racism and rhetoric of British Broadsheet newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.
SBISA, M. Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 33, n. 12, p. 1791–1814, 2001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6.
SCHOLZ, O. KanzlerKompakt, 24 February 2023. Available from: . Access on: 26 Feb. 2023.
SEARLE, J. R. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995. Available from:
SEARLE, J. R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173452.
SEARLE, J. R. A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, Cambridge, v. 5, n. 1, p. 1-23, 1976. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837.
SEARLE, J. Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
SKOVGAARD-OLSEN, N., KELLEN, D., KRAHL, H., KLAUER, K., Ch. Relevance differently affects the truth, acceptability, and probability evaluations of “and”, “but”, “therefore”, and “if–then”. Thinking and Reasoning, Oxford, v. 23, n. 4, p. 449-482, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2017.1374306.
SPECTOR, B., SUDO, Y. Presupposed ignorance and exhaustification: how scalar implicatures and presuppositions interact. Linguistics and Philosophy, Dordrecht, v. 40, n. 5, p. 473-517, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10988-017-9208-9.
SUKHAREVICH, A. Why Germany is so reluctant to support Ukraine in the war, News of a Healthy Person, Kyiv, 19 February 2023. Available from: . Access on: 22 Feb. 2023.
SWEETSER, E., & FAUCONNIER, G. Cognitive links and domains: Basic aspects of mental space theory. In: Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser E. (eds.). Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996. p. 1-28.
THALER, V. Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, Amsterdam, v. 44, n. 6–7, p. 907-919, 2012. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001.
WITWICKI, А. Przekażą Ukrainie Leopardy, ale to nic nie zmienia. „Nie oznacza to zwrotu w polityce niemieckiego rządu. Niezalezna, Warszawa, 29 January 2023. Available from: . Access on: 1 Feb. 2023.
WODAK, R. The Discourse of Politics in Action. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17851/2237-2083.31.3.1272-1302
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2024 Nataliia Kravchenko, Oleksandr Yudenko, Olena Zhykharieva, Iryna Kryknitska
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
e - ISSN 2237-2083
Licensed through Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional