Presupposed evaluation in environmental argumentative discourse
Expressions of evaluation in discourse have been studied from a number of different perspectives, all highlighting the fact that evaluation may be expressed cumulatively, through a combination of different linguistic means, and pragmatically, at various levels of implicitness, which often defy precise categorization. This paper argues that, in argumentative discourse, the pragmatics of evaluation includes not only implied but also presupposed aspects. A case study centred on the environmental debate over the contested practice of fracking is used to identify the evaluative premises that lie behind the main stances or claims on the issue, as expressed by different stakeholders. It is argued that this wider approach to the analysis of evaluation may be particularly suited to uncover the evaluative premises that lie at the core of different and often contradictory environmental positions and policies.
Published online: 06 July 2020
5 January 2013 Viewpoints: fracking’s risks and benefits Available online at www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20758673NT
Benamara, Farah, Maite Taboada & Yannick Mathieu
Colomina-Almiñana, Juan J.
Davies, Anna R.
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst
Johnson, Ralph H. & Blair J. Anthony
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
Hommerberg, Charlotte & Alexanne, Don
Hood, Susan & J. R. Martin
Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson
Labov, William & Joshua Valetzky
Macken-Horarik, Mary & Anne Isaac
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
Toulmin, Stephen E., Richard Rieke & Allan S. Janik
Vargas, Andrès, Michael Howes & Nicholas Rohde
White, Peter R. R.
Wilson, Matthew A. & Richard B. Howarth