Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen

Acta Linguistica Lithuanica LIV (2006), 1 – 25 The Role of Hedging Expressions in Discourse Structuring in German and Lithuanian Eglė Alosevičienė Vilnius University The article deals with the role of hedges in organising discourse structure. A comparative analysis of speeches by German and Lithuanian politicians reveals the significance of hedges as elements of discourse. Attention is paid, first of all, to thematicisation and argumentation strategies as well as to metalinguistic comments in which hedges perform several linguistic functions. They lend emphasis to an utterance, help the speaker distance himself from it, or allow him to present it as reflecting his own subjective point of view. The results of the analysis are grouped according to the pragmatic functions hedges may perform (evaluation, emphasis, distancing, degree of likelihood, metalinguistic). Morpho-semantically and syntactically, hedges comprise almost all parts of speech, including modal markers, as well as a considerable part of the syntactic constructions and even stylistic and graphic properties of the text. 0. PRELIMINARY REMARKS The aim of this article is to address the relationships between hedging expressions (hedging) and discourse structuring with regard to thematization and argumentation strategies, as well as metacommunication, taking into account differences and similarities in the use of hedging expressions in German and Lithuanian. The corpus examined comprises texts totaling 100,000 words from Lithuanian- and German-language political speeches, which are thematically classified under “foreign policy” and, in terms of text type and function, as “conference, occasion, opening, and parliamentary speeches.” 1 EGLE ALOSEVIČIENĖ Linguistic hedges, which have considerable communicative-pragmatic potential, are considered here as discourse units. They structure individual speeches, but also comment on the discourse itself by referring simultaneously to speakers and listeners. Within political discourse, they prove to be important means that can be used for strategic speech acts. In argumentation, topic organization, and metacommunication, hedging expressions fulfill specific functions. In doing so, they can shape speeches in either a mitigating or an intensifying way. They can also epistemically weaken statements or, conversely, present them as the results of subjective evaluations. This article focuses in particular on these functions of hedging expressions. 1. HEDGING EXPRESSIONS FROM A LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE Der von Lakoff (1972) eingeführte Terminus hedge, hedging hat sich in der Sprachwissenschaft als Untersuchungsgegenstand etabliert. Einerseits werden dabei ausschließlich Indikatoren der Unbestimmtheit analysiert, die der Abschwächung der Gewissheit oder auch der Einschränkung der Verantwortung des Textverfassers dienen (vgl. House/Kasper 1981: 167, 185; Skelton 1997: 45). Andererseits wird für eine weite Auffassung des Phänomens plädiert, wobei auf Zusammenhänge zwischen Modalität und diskursanalytischer Perspektive eingegangen wird und verschiedene Aspekte der Sprechereinstellungen (von der Ungewissheit bis zur Intensivierung und Evidentialität) und der möglichen Auswirkungen auf den Rezipienten berücksichtigt werden (vgl. Markkanen/Schröder 1997: 5f.). In den meisten Untersuchungen steht aber das kommunikativ-pragmatische Potenzial der Heckenausdrücke im Vordergrund, so dass darauf verzichtet werden kann, das Heckenphänomen auf bestimmte Wortart-Listen einzugrenzen. 2. SEMANTIC AND PRAGMATIC CHARACTERISTICS OF DISCOURSE MARKERS Linguistic units with a discourse-structuring function are grouped under various terms: “conversation words” (Hen- 2 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen ne 1978), „Modalisierungsmarker“ bzw. „Modalisatoren“ (Fairclough 2003: 170f.; Dalmas 2003), „pragmatische Marker“ (Fraser 1990; Brinton 1996) und schließlich „Diskursmarker“ (Schiffrin 2001). Im Hinblick auf ihre semantischen und pragmatischen Besonderheiten bilden sie eine Teilmenge innerhalb des Heckenkomplexes. Ihr semantisches Charakteristikum lässt sich durch deren kohärenzstiftende Funktion, d.h. die Relation zwischen einzelnen Sprachelementen bzw. -einheiten bei der Redegestaltung beschreiben. Aus diskursiv-pragmatischer Sicht sind sie sprecherorientiert und diskursbezogen, dienen der Gesichtswahrung beim Ausdruck von Einschätzungen und Glaubensinhalten, markieren die Sprechereinstellung, sind Mittel der Argumentationsstrategien und Ökonomie (vgl. Lewis 2006).1 Fraser (2005) unterscheidet vier Typen von pragmatischen Markern, wobei er nur kommentierende (d. leider, offen gesagt, sicher, glücklicherweise; lit. deja, atvirai pasakius, iš tikrųjų, laimei) als eigentliche Diskursmarker versteht, die u.a. als Heckenausdrücke eingestuft werden können. Sie signalisieren den sequentiellen Diskurszusammenhang bzw. die Intention des Sprechers im Hinblick auf die Rolle der Aussage in Verbindung mit dem früheren Diskurs. Im Hinblick auf das Heckenphänomen betont Brinton (1996: 37) die Eigenschaft der Diskursmarker, den Diskurs subjektiv zu thematisieren und Unsicherheiten des Sprechers zu bekunden. Auch Walrod (2006: 6) misst den eigentlichen Stellenwert der Diskursmarker den unmittelbar mit dem Heckenphänomen verbundenen Erscheinungen wie Abschwächungen (d. ziemlich, teilweise, sozusagen; lit. gana, pakankamai, iš dalies, vadinamas), Distanzierungen (d. vermeintlich, anscheinend; lit. tariamas, menamas), Unsicherheiten (d. vielleicht, möglich, es scheint; lit. galbūt, įmanoma, regis) oder Intensivierungen (d. sicher, bestimmt, gerade, genau; lit. esu tikras, žinoma, būtent) bei. 1 Schiffrin (1986: 42) bezeichnet im engeren Sinne nur solche Elemente als pragmatische Marker, die multifunktional und schwer lexikalisch zu bestimmen sind und die keine propositionale Bedeutung haben. Ihr Hauptaugenmerk richtet sich auf solche Elemente wie und, aber, weil, deswegen etc. Diese Diskursmarker sind nicht sprecherbezogen, sondern beziehen sich auf objektive Gegebenheiten, indem sie Wirklichkeit beschreiben, und sind daher nicht Gegenstand dieser Untersuchung. 3 EGLĖ ALOSEVIČIENĖ 3. EXPLICATING AND PUTTING THE CONCEPT OF DISCOURSE TO USE The concept of “discourse” is highly complex and is applied in many fields. The research of Foucault (1970), the originator of the concept of discourse, focuses on social institutions and practices, their rules, modes of constitution, and constraints (“discursive practices”).2 Only two approaches to the concept of discourse are relevant to the present study. On the one hand, by it we mean certain relations within individual text instances, especially the semantic relations between textual units. In this respect, we distance ourselves from the discourse-analytical perspective, which primarily investigates phenomena of conversation organization, but is also directly connected with the study of hedging expressions3. Since the corpus under investigation consists of political speeches, on the other hand we adopt an understanding of political discourse as being characterized by a range of specific (primarily linguistic) features. Here we follow the established concept of discourse—text instances of different genres4 that refer to one another 2 Although Foucault understands discourse as a set of utterances, he is not interested in its linguistic aspect. Rather, his concept of discourse concerns the regularity of social actions. For Foucault, the study of discourses always also entails the study of power as a force that structures discourse. Furthermore, he distinguishes between original discourse and commentary discourse, the latter representing variations on the former, while original discourses, in turn, provide the impetus for further speech acts (cf. Foucault 1998: 15ff.). Critical discourse analysis also aims in this direction: it sees itself as an interdisciplinary form of social analysis concerned with exposing discursive power relations (cf. Jäger 1993; Fairclough/Wodak 1997). 3 Studies by Prince et al. (1982), Low (1996), and Tschizmarova (2005) have examined hedging expressions in spoken discourse. 4 By genres we mean particular patterns of action or communicative forms “that manifest themselves as habitualized communicative behavior, particularly in recurrent situations” (Pappert 2003: 23). Günthner (2000: 21) describes them as “conventionalized yet flexible and dynamic structures of expectation regarding the organization of linguistic and communicative procedures in a concrete discourse context.” It should be emphasized that the defining features of a genre are usually situated simultaneously on many levels: on 4 DIE ROLLE DER HECKENAUSDRÜCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN which refer to one another constitute a particular discourse or form a communicative ensemble5. The political speeches we examine are part of informative-appealing or informative-persuasive language use, aimed at influencing and manipulating public opinion (cf. Pappert 2003: 59). Of course, other functions (contact, obligation, and declaration functions) are not excluded, especially since political discourse encompasses a wide range of possible speech acts, such as giving reasons, justifying, presenting facts, self-presentation, establishing connections, restricting, modifying, and directing. In connection with the use of hedging expressions and their role in discourse structuring, the strategic aspects6 within political discourse also deserve particular mention. They are directly linked to the linguistic realization of the speech acts mentioned above. According to Klein (1998), this involves • relevance strategies (modulation strategies, adopting the addressee’s perspective), • suggestiveness strategies (conveying evidence, reinforcing and evaluating), • plausibility strategies (signaling preferences in light of possible reservations on the part of listeners), and • concealment strategies (omitting relevant information, making implicit suggestions and indirect references, feigning uncertainty). the linguistic (prosodic and phonological, lexico-semantic, and morphosyntactic means), situational (discourse-analytical, media-related conditions, etc.), and social (institutional framework, gender constellation, etc.) levels. 5 Zur Explizierung des Diskursbegriffs s. vor allem Busse und Teubert (1994) sowie Bluhm et al. (2000). 6 Zu strategischen Aspekten der politischen Kommunikation s. auch Hoffmann (1998). 5 Egle Alosevičienė 4. HEDGE EXPRESSIONS AS DISCOURSE-STRUCTURING UNITS The role of hedge expressions as discourse markers arises from the nature of the respective discourse. Discourses have structures (units and segments) and relations (rhetorical relations and coherence relations, i.e. arguments), and are linked by cohesion (linguistic and lexical means) and coherence (content-related connections). The textual (contribution to the establishment of coherence and cohesion) and interpersonal (modalization, intensification) functions of discourse markers organize individual parts of text sections in the monologic and written discourse examined here, so that they are not restricted to the linguistic perspective but at the same time allow statements to be made about language users’ cognitive, expressive, social, and textual competence (cf. Schiffrin 2001: 67). In discourse structuring, hedging has a diverse range of linguistic expressions. The range of hedging use extends from modality expressions (modal particles, modal words, modal verbs in performative use) to syntactic (conditional clauses), stylistic (litotes, rhetorical questions), and graphic (quotation marks) forms of language. Participles, metaphorical transfers, and interjections occur in our corpus as marginal manifestations of linguistic hedging. In terms of frequency, the center of the hedging phenomenon lies in epistemic and restrictive use. Accordingly, modality expressions and restrictors of various kinds have the highest frequency in both languages. These and other communicative functions, such as evaluation, intensification, and speech commentary, and their role in discourse are analyzed below in connection with thematic structure and argumentation theory. 4.1 Topic Organization and Argumentation With regard to thematic text structure, hedge expressions prove to be means of modalizing and evaluating the thematic core and individual topics. With regard to the topic-organization structure 6 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen discourse markers are elements of sequencing strategies, i.e. they contribute to the organization of thematic units. Argumentation is a “linguistic procedure situated ‘below’ the unit ‘discourse type’, but which also plays an important role in discourses described as ‘public speeches’” (Trautmann 2004: 21). According to Klein (1980), argumentations are to be regarded as complex speech acts that contain claims, objections, etc., and are inherently vague, ambiguous, context-dependent, and illocutionarily multifunctional. Das wohl bekannteste Argumentationsschema von Toulmin (1975: 90ff. nach Ohlinger 2003: 28f.) schließt folgende Komponenten ein: Daten bzw. die These (stützungsbedürftige Äußerungen), von denen mittels der Schlussregel von der stützenden zu der zu stützenden Äußerung auf eine Konklusion gefolgert wird. Auf Daten wird explizit, auf Schlussregeln dagegen implizit Bezug genommen. Wenn mittels Schlussregeln keine eindeutigen Behauptungen annehmbar sind, sind Stützungen (weitere Argumente), modale Einschränkungsoperatoren (Modifikatoren bzw. Qualifikatoren) bzw. Ausnahmebedingungen einzuführen, die die Gültigkeit der Konklusion außer Kraft setzen bzw. in Frage stellen können. Die kohärenzstiftende Struktur der Argumentationen ergibt sich daraus, dass sie bei der Erschließung von Präsuppositionen helfen können7. In general, a distinction is made between inductive and deductive arguments. The former include arguments based on the structure of reality (coexistence relations, cause-and-effect relationships), so that the issue here is not coherence but evidence (cf. Petter 1988: 117). In the second group of arguments, the data establish a clear connection between attitudes, dispositions, and intentions on the one hand, and actions on the other (especially in camouflage strategies). Arguments, like units of metacommunication, are linguistic acts that contribute to conflict or problem resolution. They are used to establish consensus on contentious issues. In this context, hedge expressions have the following argumentative functions: assessment, explanation (commentary), relativization, restriction, contributing to the support or problematization of a position, etc. What should not be underestimated in this context is 7 Vgl. hierzu auch Linke et al. (1994: 242ff.). 7 EGLE ALOSEVIČIENĖ the persuasive aspect, which primarily hints implicitly at the speaker’s intentions. Argumentative success and, consequently, sometimes the persuasive effect also depend on whether a logical connection is established between the thesis and the data presented. This is expressed explicitly through the use of intensifying and positively evaluative elements. By contrast, strategically deployed hedges serve to counter possible objections. Texts characterized by a high degree of modality contain a greater proportion of implicit information and contribute substantially to fulfilling certain communicative functions. A particle-rich language such as German can, for example, use modal particles (ja, wohl) to implicitly or indirectly soften and qualify statements in accordance with politeness norms, a function that Lithuanian must perform by other means, such as epistemic verbs (manyti, tikėtis, laikyti), nouns (prielaida, galimybė, viltis), and participles (tikėtina, abejotina, priimtina). The modal particles most extensively studied in connection with argumentation are probably those8. This can be explained by their multifunctionality and their high degree of implicitness; the use of modal particles can leave logical connections and argumentative relations implicit. The number of modal particles is the same in both languages, although German is described as a particle-rich language. This is because many Lithuanian particles (gal, galbūt, tarsi) correspond to German modal words. Differences, however, arise within the individual functional domains. Whereas in German, evidential and justificatory indicators (ja) and indicators of a high degree of probability (wohl) predominate in the introduction of arguments, in Lithuanian components expressing conjecture predominate (bene, tarsi, gal, galbūt, turbūt), thereby emphasizing the hypothetical nature of the arguments. Furthermore, in Lithuanian they refer not only to the preceding statements: (1) The international community must strengthen the network of reconstruction teams in the provinces. Germany is already, after all, 8 S. hierzu Beiträge von Brauße (1986) und Rost-Roth (1998). 8 DIE ROLLE DER HECKENAUSDRÜCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN represented by a PRT in Kunduz and a diplomatic office in Herat. (2) In this connection, I would particularly like to give our guests from the Emirates a few figures that are probably familiar to the German economy [...] (3) The European Union is experiencing a crisis, perhaps even finding itself in a kind of deadlock. The narrow interests of one state or group of states are being placed above the common interests of all Europe. The referendums on the Constitution of the European Union failed precisely in the founding member states of Europe. In German, a very convenient means for the speaker’s perspectivization strategy and for avoiding breaks while continuing the development of a topic is the particle eigentlich. It also makes it possible to connect to a situation or topic with which the utterance has no relation (cf. Dalmas 2003: 203f.). Moreover, as with the epistemic verb form ich finde, it can restrict the claim to general validity. In Lithuanian, the same function is performed by the parenthetical insertions tiesa, tiesą sakant, iš tikrųjų, which can likewise serve to support a preceding utterance as equivalents of the German discourse markers tatsächlich, in der Tat: (4) Prime Minister Karamanlis has taken up an idea that I would like to emphasize, indeed emphasize twice. This is eigentlich a new topic [...] (5) Although, in the wake of the referendums in France and the Netherlands, there is active debate about the direction in which EU integration processes should develop, the need for a stronger and more unified common EU foreign and security policy is hardly controversial. In fact, the EU’s authority on the international stage is steadily growing, while its influence and involvement in resolving conflicts around the world continue to expand. When the role of modal expressions in argumentation needs to be emphasized, the role of modal words should also be stressed, not least alongside modal particles. Hypothetical arguments in particular can be emphasized by epistemic operators such as bestimmt, sicher, offensichtlich, tikrai, tikriausiai, etc. Their pragmatic 9 EGLĖ ALOSEVIČIENĖ Funktion sieht Eggs (2000: 409) darin, dass sie rationales Argumentieren ermöglichen, ohne für die Wahrheit aller Prämissen einstehen zu müssen: (6) We are on the right track. And international criticism also confirms that this mixed system is probably better than pure pay-as-you-go systems on the one hand and pure funded systems on the other. (7) Today these issues are very important for all the states in which we are observing the first stirrings of democracy, as if they were volcanic eruptions, for example in Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova. Probably all this is even more important for those states that suffer under an autocratic and isolated regime, for example Belarus. The phenomenon of modality also includes modal verbs used performatively and epistemic verbs. Thus, by combining the modal verb können (Lith. galėti) with a performative verb9, speakers can signal that they can respond to possible criticism or the opinions of others with a final and almost self-evident argument (cf. Schwitalla 1979: 125): (8) I can only say to you at this point: If strategic decisions are not made here between the transatlantic partners to build consensus, this entire region will increasingly slide into a rather negative development. (9) I can only confirm, that everything will be done to secure more favorable conditions for agriculture [...] Epistemic verbs can indicate a low degree of probability as well as signal a qualification of the claim’s validity or the speaker’s assessment. This diversity of functions makes them extremely convenient means of structuring discourse. Moreover, epistemic verbs very rarely occur without support from other hedging expressions: 9 Solche Verbindungen werden laut Fraser (1975) als „hedged performatives“ bezeichnet. Diese Bezeichnung deutet nicht auf die traditionelle Auffassung des Terminus der Performativität hin, sondern eher auf die modalisierende bzw. interaktive Funktion der Modalverben (vgl. Wunderlich 1983; Verstraete 2001: 1517). 10 DIE ROLLE DER HECKENAUSDRÜCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN (10) I think, a process of politicization can also take place within the national parliament, and this is of eminent importance. (11) We believe that our experience would also be of great use to Alliance partners in the South Caucasus states, as well as in the Western Balkans and Central Asia. Rules of inference (induction and deduction), together with various types of argumentation, form the central textual patterns of argumentative texts. Consequently, forms of generic reasoning (especially in plausibility strategies) play a special role. In Lithuanian, adversative-argumentative, and often also evaluative, linking of statements predominates, whereas in German it competes with the restrictive devices of argumentative-explanatory comments (concessive argumentation, by contrast, is distributed equally as a marker of dissent or correction): (12) Lithuania has always advocated the earliest possible start of negotiations with Turkey. However, we realize that the negotiation process will not be easy. (13) Foreign investors—I emphasize: financial investors too—are, and remain, very welcome in our economy. It is however essential that they abide by the rules jointly established. Traditionally, conditionality is viewed as a relationship between a hypothetical cause and its effect (cf. Girdenienė 2001: 28). In our corpus, conditional clause linkages are more frequent in German. It seems to be primarily a cultural matter whether, in arguing, one refers to logical arguments or makes hypothetical statements in this form: (14) If the international community withdraws from Afghanistan, then we know exactly what the consequences will be. (15) [...] last Friday, the State Duma ratified the Kyoto Protocol, thereby clearing the way to combat the climate catastrophe that would threaten us if we did not take action. 11 EGLE ALOSEVICIENĖ Nevertheless, it is entirely possible to establish implicitly a generic connection between cause and consequence by means of a conditional clause in German, and also with the help of a special participle (gerund) in Lithuanian (cf. Eggs 2000: 402). Thus, the statement is endowed with the aspect of eventuality, which characterizes the condition explicitly or implicitly as potentially fulfillable: (16) Without European integration, it probably would not have been possible to overcome nationalistic selfishness and deeply rooted hereditary enmities. (17) With Russia's participation, we can transform the Baltic Sea region into one of the most prosperous regions in Europe. Rhetorical questions are classified as discourse markers insofar as they can serve both to introduce a new topic and to divert attention from what has already been said. At the same time, however, they also address the listener and direct their attention to specific matters. Finally, they can be used to avoid categorical statements, which is particularly observable in German-language speeches. The tendency to use rhetorical questions to structure speech is characteristic of Lithuanian political speeches: (18) Lithuania’s efforts to assume the role of an active leader among the countries of the Black Sea region are clearly visible and appreciated. But can we limit ourselves to helping others alone? Have all the goals Lithuania set for itself already been achieved? Do we already know what Lithuania seeks to achieve as a member of the European Union? (19) The inspectors have thus been able to achieve some successes [...] Why should we deviate from this path right now? Why halt the inspections now? Siepmann (2001: 101f.) betont die Rolle der verbalen, nominalen und adverbialen Restriktoren als Mehrwort-Diskursmarker, die einen wesentlichen Teil des Heckenkomplexes bilden und vergleichbare Funktionen haben können (v.a. Bekräftigung bzw. Einschränkung des vorgängigen Diskurses bzw. Redebeitrags): (20) Russia has—this should be emphasized—proved to be an exceptionally reliable and responsible partner in this cooperation. 12 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen (21) One question is whether this warning, issued some time ago, is still relevant to this extent, or whether we have, after all, already made some progress along the way. (22) There were signs of disappointment, especially when the member states lacked the will to implement structural reforms. (23) The main question is how to ensure that the Council is effective and representative. 4.2 Metacommunication Metacommunication is regarded as a particularly suitable means of harmonizing conflicts that arise or even merely preventing conflicts that are feared (cf. Schwitalla 1979: 139; Adamzik 1984: 70). It has both textual (sequencing and speech structuring) and interpersonal (modalization, evaluation, commenting) functions. Metalinguistic speech is speech about language that has a pragmatic function but does not perform a speech act. The concept of metacommunication must therefore be distinguished from that of illocution (cf. Welte/Rosemann 1990: 137ff.). This fundamental distinction, however, does not preclude performatives or the performative use of individual linguistic devices—such as modal verbs—from occurring in metalinguistic contexts. These also include “adverbials with a metacommunicative function” (Bartsch 1972: 60). Here, reinforcing (d. natürlich, selbstverständlich; lit. žinoma, suprantama), attenuating (d. anscheinend; lit. matyt, galbūt), and parenthetical (d. sozusagen, genau betrachtet, offen gesagt; lit. taip vadinamas, kitaip tariant, tiesą sakant, žvelgiant istoriškai) adverbials are considered. The latter group is also referred to as “speech-act adverbials” (Pittner 1999: 320). Bartsch (1972: 67) attributes a discourse-organizing function to this group of adverbials, in the sense that, unlike conjunctions, they relate not described facts or events to one another, but rather different modes of description (in the sense of additional information). These adverbials 13 EGLE ALOSEVIČIENĖ sowie die „pragmatischen Konditionale“ (Pittner 2000) lassen sich auch mit den Aspekten der Höflichkeit10 und Abschwächung verbinden. Mit ihrer Hilfe lassen sich die Aussagen für den Hörer akzeptabel machen, zugleich kann man jedoch auch Annahmen über Präferenzen der Rezipienten signalisieren, um beide Seiten das Gesicht wahren zu lassen. Metacommentaries may also include indications of the speaker’s stance, in which speakers signal cognitive, emotional, and communicative attitudes (evaluations, qualifications, evidence, emphasis, etc.). The thematization of speaker stances can take many forms; examples include emotion indicators (d. leider, glücklicherweise; lit. deja, laimei), linguistic devices that imply an evaluation (d. unheimlich, großartig; lit. nepaprastas, puikus) or qualify it (d. ziemlich, recht, ganz; lit. gana, pakankamai), as well as metalinguistically connoted elements in quotation marks, etc. Metacommunication in political discourse takes the form of comments on further utterances, on shared linguistic and non-linguistic activities, and of qualifying or reinforcing additions. In the corpus we examined, metacommentaries are expressed through various linguistic devices, namely “hedged performatives,” performative, evaluative, and parenthetical adverbials, and the use of negation and quotation marks, etc. “Hedged performatives,” as metacommentaries on further utterances, are distributed evenly within the hedging complex in both German-language and Lithuanian political speeches; by contrast, only Lithuanian speakers tend to reinforce their own position by using modal verbs performatively: (24) I möchte like, in this connection [...] to address what has always distinguished Germany’s economy. Our interest is to be fair partners. We neither want nor need to dominate anyone. 10 Brown und Levinson (1987: 70) unterscheiden grundsätzlich zwischen positiver und negativer Höflichkeit: erstere ist auf das Selbstbild des Sprechers gerichtet, um positive Seiten hervorzuheben, die letztere bezieht sich auf die Beschönigung des Rezipienten. 14 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen (25) As one successful example of this, I would like to mention the Klaipėda region, where the Klaipėda Free Economic Zone, a strong Klaipėda University, a port, and excellent infrastructure are all in place. (26) In conclusion, I want once again to emphasize that Lithuania, together with its partners, is ready to implement the priorities of both the “New Neighbors” and “Northern Dimension” initiatives and seeks to identify more points of contact between them. Parentheticals are described as secondary acts, i.e. speech acts that are less important than those performed in the surrounding sentence (cf. Pittner 1996). They are primarily associated with the information structure of a text, but their universal communicative function is to signal this supplementary information at the metacommunicative level: (27) Today we stand at the beginning—or, better said, in the middle—of a new and truly happy partnership. (28) To put it plainly, we Lithuanians, Poles, or Latvians do not have a magic recipe for beginning and carrying out democratic reforms. The marking of recommmenting procedures can also be achieved through evaluative and intensifying expressions. Evaluative elements, together with intensifiers and emotion indicators, are essential components of political communication. In Lithuanian, evaluative and, where relevant, emotional comments are preferred over intensifiers, whereas the opposite tendency is observed in German: (29) Lithuania’s membership in the European Union qualitatively changes our participation in regional and global politics. (30) The number of victims in the Middle East conflict continues to rise desperately. (31) The Polish nation [...] has made many quite extraordinary contributions to the development of Europe. Within metacommunication, negation occupies a special position. In particular, so-called double negations, known in rhetoric and stylistics under the term “litotes,” can be used both to mitigate and to intensify positive evaluations 15 Eglė Alosevičienė are used. The degree of evaluation is always connected with the emotional commitment of the speaker or writer (cf. Adamzik 1984: 256). In both languages, however, negation primarily has a mitigating or restrictive function: (32) This constitution is an offer to the citizens, an offer to all forces of European civil societies. It is not least up to them to breathe life into the letter of the constitution. (33) Our goals, which we pursue, or the principles by which we are guided, are not different. Within political communication, quotation marks do not indicate that a word or expression is insufficiently established in the language system; rather, an expression with metalinguistic connotations is linked to problematizing the subject matter for the audience. Other hedging expressions can serve the same function, such as a kind of, so-called; a certain, so-called, the so-called, peculiar. Lithuanian politicians in particular tend to mitigate problematic utterances or subject matter through quotation marks or intonation, whereas German political speeches display a higher frequency of restrictive adverbials: (34) Finally, we must help to resolve the “frozen” conflicts that are hindering the economic development of the aforementioned countries and dividing society. (35) If we take, for example, the two referendums in Holland and France, which so to speak caused a shock, [...] then we can also see this cluster of motives here. Conditional clauses do not have only an argumentative function. The if-clauses in the prefield also have metacommunicative functions, among others, and operate at the discourse-pragmatic level by either formulating the conditions under which the ensuing speech acts are relevant (Examples 36 and 37), or referring to interactional and politeness conventions (Examples 38 and 39): 16 DIE ROLLE DER HECKENAUSDRÜCKE BEI DER DISKURSSTRUKTURIERUNG IM DEUTSCHEN UND LITAUISCHEN (36) Turkey has indeed already made tremendous progress and caught up. But if it wants to succeed, it will have to make even greater progress in the future. (37) It is clear that our region, if we wish to benefit from the advantages of economic integration, cannot remain the missing link in Europe’s infrastructure. (38) If I may, I would also like to speak briefly about the difficulties of implementing such a reform strategy. (39) However, if you are also interested in my opinion, I am not afraid to say: the marathon to ratify the EU Constitutional Treaty will be won only when it has been successfully completed in all EU member states! 5. CONCLUSIONS The complex phenomenon of linguistic hedging does not occur in isolation in different discourses, but overlaps, among other things, with the semantic and pragmatic characteristics of the so-called discourse markers. Hedging expressions play a special role in discourse structuring by organizing thematic units, supporting speakers’ arguments, and permitting metacommunicative insertions in text and discourse. The comparative analysis and quantitative evaluation of political discourse have shown that, in German, the use of discourse markers to express different degrees of probability and to intensify one’s own statements predominates. Modal words and modal particles in particular play an essential role in this respect, serving as carriers of additional or implicit information. Metacommentaries are also characteristic of German-language political speeches. Lithuanian political speeches, by contrast, are distinguished by a higher proportion of restrictive and evaluative linguistic elements. 17 Eglė Alosevičienė LIST OF SOURCE TEXTS Speech by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the World Economic Forum in Davos, 28.01.2005. URL http://www.bundesregierung.de/-,413.780791/rede/ Speech-by-Federal-Chancellor-Gerhard.htm: Example (6) Speech by Federal Chancellor Schröder at the German-Russian Investment Conference, 28.10.2004. URL http://www.moskau.diplo.de/de/03/Reden/ Datei_041028,property=Daten.doc: Examples (15), (20) Speech by Kerstin Müller, Minister of State at the Federal Foreign Office, at the opening of the Conference of Afghan Civil Society, 29.03.2004. URL http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=5556: Example (1) Speech by Federal Chancellor Schröder on the occasion of the Polish Lisbon Strategy Forum, 26.05.2004. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/rede/90/658090/multi.htm: Examples (31), (38) Speech by Federal Chancellor Schröder to students and graduates of the Financial Academy in Moscow, 08.07.2004. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/bulletin/44/693644/multi.htm: Example (27) Speech by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder at the conference “Giving Europe a Soul”, 26.11.2004. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/rede/12/751512/multi.htm: Examples (16), (21), (32) Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Fischer on the European Constitution before the German Bundestag, Berlin, 02.07.2004, (excerpt). URL http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=5908: Example (10) Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Fischer at the United Nations Security Council in New York on the situation in Iraq/Kuwait, 14.02.2003. URL http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/aussenpolitik/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=4074&type_id=3&bereich_id=11: Example (19) Speech by Federal Foreign Minister Fischer on German foreign policy before the German Bundestag, 08.09.2004 (excerpt). URL http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/de/ausgabe_archiv?archiv_id=6110: Examples (8), (14), (36) 18 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen Speech by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder before the German-Saudi Arabian Business Forum in Riyadh, 28.02.2005. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/bulletin/51/799451/multi.htm: Example (24) Speech by Federal Chancellor Schröder before the German-Emirati Business Forum, 05.03.2005. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/rede,-797357/Rede-von-Bundeskanzler-Schroed.htm: Example (2) Speech by Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel at the Wachau Europe Forum, 06.06.2004. URL http://www.austria.gv.at/2004/6/9/göttweig2004_final_k.pdf: Example (4) Speech by Federal Chancellor Schüssel on the occasion of “Europe Day” in Parliament, 29.9.2006. URL http://www.austria.gv.at/Docs/2005/9/29/rede_hbk_europatag_20050929.pdf: Example (35) Speech by Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schröder before the American Chamber of Commerce in Washington, 27.06.2005. URL http://archiv.bundesregierung.de/bpaexport/rede/18/850918/multi.htm: Example (13) Speech by H.E. Valdas Adamkus, President of the Republic of Lithuania, at the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly, 2004.09.22. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/5266: Example (23), (30) Speech by H.E. Valdas Adamkus, President of the Republic of Lithuania, at the American Chamber of Commerce business lunch, “How to Maintain Dynamic Growth in the Baltic Region: A Vision for the Future,” Vilnius, 2004.10.07. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/5322: Example (17), (37) Prezidento Valdo Adamkaus kalba verslo pusryčiuose, Čikaga, JAV, 2004.09.24 URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/5277: Beleg (25) Speech by Foreign Minister A. Valionis at the conference devoted to the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, 2004.11.12. URL http://www.voruta.lt/article.php?article=656: Example (39) Congratulatory speech by Minister of Foreign Affairs A. Valionis at the conference “The New NATO: Developing a Public Diplomacy Strategy,” 2004.06.07. URL http://amb.urm.lt/nato/showitem.php?TopMenuID=1245&ItemID=2693&SiteID=66&LangID=1: Example (11) 19 Eglė Alosevičienė Greeting by President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus at the conference “Halfway through the Lisbon Process: The Aspirations and Prospects of Governments and Industrial and Business Organizations in the New EU Member States,” 2005.02.24. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/5535: Beleg (22) President Valdas Adamkus’s speech at the extraordinary plenary session of the Seimas, “Lithuania’s Interests in the European Union,” 2005.10.20. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/6091: Beleg (3), (18) Speech by the Speaker of the Seimas at a discussion held at the Seimas on the most important issues on the European Union agenda, 2005.10.20. URL http://www.palauskas.lt/index.asp?DL=L&TopicID=159: Beleg (12) Speech by Foreign Minister A. Valionis at the Seimas discussion on the most topical issues of European Union policy, 2005.10.20. URL www.urm.lt/index.php?1149113537: Beleg (5) A. Brazausko pasisakymas BJVT viršūnių susitikime, 2004.06.21 URL http://www.ministraspirmininkas.lt/page.asp?DL=L&TopicID=14&ArticleID=116: Beleg (9) A. Brazausko pasisakymas Konvento klausimu, 2003.04.16 URL http://www.ministraspirmininkas.lt/page.asp?DL=L&TopicID=14&ArticleID=534: Beleg (33) Address by President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, “The Future of Europe through Lithuania’s Eyes,” at the French Institute of Political Science, 2005.10.07. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/6035: Beleg (34) Address by President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus, “Terra Democratica in Eastern Europe and Beyond: Achievements, Challenges and Next Steps,” delivered at a reception hosted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 2005.09.19. URL http://www.president.lt/lt/news.full/5998: Beleg (7), (28) Address by President of the Republic of Lithuania Valdas Adamkus to the heads of foreign diplomatic missions, 2004.07.14. URL http://www.urm.lt/popup2.php?item_id=8811: Beleg (29) Speech by President Rolandas Paksas at the international conference “The Eastern Dimension of the European Union,” organized by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the Embassy of Denmark, 2003.04.25 20 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen URL http://www.euro.lt/ivykiai/readnews.php3?ItemID = 3381&TopMenuID = 1&MenuItemID = 2&LangID = 1: Example (26) LITERATURE Adamzik, K. 1984: Sprachliches Handeln und sozialer Kontakt. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Bartsch, R. 1972: Adverbialsemantik. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum. Bluhm, C., Deissler, D., Scharloth, J., Stukenbrock, A. 2000: Linguistische Diskursanalyse: Überblick, Probleme, Perspektiven. Sprache und Literatur: in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 86, 3–19. Brausse, U. 1986: Zum Problem der sogenannten Polyfunktionalität von Modalpartikeln. Ja und eben als Argumentationssignale. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39 (2), 206–223. Brinton, L. J. 1996: Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter. Brown, P., Levinson, S. C. 1987: Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: University Press. Busse, D., Teubert, W. 1994: Ist Diskurs ein sprachwissenschaftliches Objekt? Zur Methodenfrage der historischen Semantik. In: D. Busse, F. Hermanns, W. Teubert, Hrsg., Begriffsgeschichte und Diskursgeschichte. Methodenfragen und Forschungsergebnisse der historischen Semantik. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 10–28. Dalmas, M. 2003: Soweit das Auge reicht? Stand und Blickpunkte durch so genannte Modal isatoren. Ein Rückblick. In: I. Behr, D. Baudot, Hrsg., Funktion und Bedeutung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 197–208. Eggs, E. 2000: Vertextungsmuster Argumentation: Logische Grundlagen. In: K. Brinker et al., Hrsg., Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. 1. Halbdb. Berlin–New York: de Gruyter, 397–414. 21 Eglė Alosevičienė Fairclough, N. 2003: Analysing Discourse. Textual analysis for social research. London–New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N., Wodak, R. 1997: Critical discourse analysis. In: T. A. van Dijk, ed., Discourse as social interaction. Discourse studies, Vol. 2. London: Sage, 258–284. Foucault, M. 1998: Diskurso tvarka: inauguracinė paskaita Collège de France, perskaityta 1970 metų gruodžio 2 dieną. Vilnius: Baltos lankos. Fraser, B. 1975: Hedged Performatives. In: P. Cole, J. L. Morgan, ed., Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3, 187–210. Fraser, B. 1990: An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14, 383–395. Fraser, B. 2006: Towards A Theory of Discourse Markers. In: K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Vol. 1. URL: http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Basic%20Introductory%20Readings/Fraser%20-%202005%20-%20Towards%20a%20Theory%20of%20DM.doc [03.03.2006]. Girdeniene, S. 2001: Kausalität als übergreifende Relation. Kalbotyra 50 (3), 27–31. Günthner, S. 2000: Vorwurfsaktivitäten in der Alltagsinteraktion. Grammatische, prosodische, rhetorisch-stilistische und interaktive Verfahren bei der Konstitution kommunikativer Muster und Gattungen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Henne, H. 1978: Gesprächswörter. Für eine Erweiterung der Wortarten. In: H. Henne, W. Mentруп, H. Weinrich, Interdisziplinäres deutsches Wörterbuch in der Diskussion. Düsseldorf: Schwann, 42–47. Hoffmann, M. 1998: Gestaltungsstrategien und strategisches Gestalten. Zur Persuasivität von Thematisierungsstilen im politischen Diskurs. In: M. Hoffmann, Chr. Keßler, Hrsg., Beiträge zur Persuasionsforschung: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung textlinguistischer und stilistischer Aspekte. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 57–97. House, J., Kasper, G. 1981: Politeness Markers in English and German. In: F. Coulmas, ed., Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton, 157–185. 22 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen Jäger, S. 1993: Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. Duisburg: Duisburger Institut für Sprach- und Sozialforschung. Klein, J. 1998: Politische Kommunikation als Sprachstrategie. In: O. Jarren, U. Sarcinelli, U. Saxer, Hrsg., Politische Kommunikation in der demokratischen Gesellschaft. Ein Handbuch mit Lexikonteil. Opladen, Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 376–395. Klein, W. 1980: Argumentation und Argument. In: W. Klein, Hrsg., Argumentation. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 9–57. Lakoff, G. 1972: Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts, in: D. Hockney, W. Harper, B. Freed, ed., Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 221–271. Lewis, D. M. 2006: Discourse markers in English: a discourse-pragmatic view. In: K. Fischer, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Vol. 1 URL: http://people.bu.edu/bfraser/Pragmatically%20Oriented/Lewis%20-%20DM%20in%20E%20-%20A%20Prag.%20View.doc [03.03.2006]. Linke A, Nussbaumer M., Portmann, P. R. 1994: Studienbuch Linguistik. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Low, G. 1996: Intensifiers and Hedges in Questionnaire Hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 17 (1), 1–37. Markkanen, R., Schröder, H. 1997: Hedging: A Challenge for Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis. In: R. Markkanen, H. Schröder, eds., Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 3–20. Ohlinger, D. 2003: Argumentation in der Erst- und Fremdsprache. Pragmalinguistische und grammatikalische Aspekte anhand von Argumentationen deutscher und litauischer Studierender. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Pappert, S. 2003: Politische Sprachspiele in der DDR: kommunikative Entdifferenzierungsprozesse und ihre Auswirkungen auf den öffentlichen Sprachgebrauch. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 23 Eglė Alosevičienė Petter, Y. 1988: Argumentationsstrategien. In: B. Sandig, Hrsg., Stilistisch-rhetorische Diskursanalyse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 103–120. Pittner, K. 1996: Redekommentierende Einschübe. In: P. Kunsmann, Hrsg., Linguistische Akzente 93. Beiträge zu den 3. Münchner Linguistik-Tagen. Hamburg: Kovač, 141–157. Pittner, K. 1999: Adverbiale im Deutschen. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Stellung und Interpretation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Pittner, K. 2000: Sprechaktbedingungen und bedingte Sprechakte: Pragmatische Konditionalsätze im Deutschen. In: A. Fetzer, K. Pittner, Hrsg., Gesprächsforschung: Neue Entwicklungen / Conversation analysis: recent developments. Linguistik online 5. URL: http://www.linguistik-online.org/1_00/PITTNER.HTM [26.11.2005]. Prince, E. F., Frader, J., Bosk, Ch. 1982: On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse. In: R.J. Di Pietro, ed., Linguistics and the Professions. Norwood–New York: Ablex, 83–97. Rost-Roth, M. 1998: Modalpartikeln in Argumentationen und Handlungsvorschlägen. In: T. Harden, E. Hentschel, Hrsg., Particulae Particularum. Festschrift für Harald Weydt. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 293–324. Schiffrin, D. 1986: The functions of and in discourse. Journal of pragmatics 10 (1), 41–66. Schiffrin, D. 2001: Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning and Context. In: D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, H. Hamilton, eds., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, Mass: Blackwell, 54–75. Schwitalla, J. 1979: Metakommunikationen als Mittel der Dialogorganisation und der Beziehungsdefinition. In: J. Dittmar, Hrsg., Arbeiten zur Konversationsanalyse. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Siepmann, D. 2001: Multi-word Discourse Markers in Translation: A Corpus-based Investigation into Restrictors. Lebende Sprachen 46 (3), 97–107. Skelton, J. 1997: How to Tell the Truth in The British Medical Journal: Patterns of Judgement in the 19th and 20th Centuries. In: R. Markkanen, H. Schröder, eds., 24 Die Rolle der Heckenausdrücke bei der Diskursstrukturierung im Deutschen und Litauischen Hedging and Discourse. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin: de Gruyter, 42–63. Trautmann, C. 2004: Argumentieren. Funktional-pragmatische Analysen praktischer und wissenschaftlicher Diskurse. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Tschizmarova, I. K. 2005: Hedging functions of the Bulgarian discourse marker xajde. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1143–1163. Verstraete, J.-Ch. 2001: Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 1505–1528. Walrod, M. 2006: The Marker is the Message. The Influence of Discourse Markers and Particles on Textual Meaning. URL: http://www.sil.org/asia/philippines/ical/papers.html [15.03.2006]. Welte, W., Rosemann, Ph. 1990: Alltagssprachliche Metakommunikation im Englischen und Deutschen. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Wunderlich, D. 1983: Modalisierte Sprechakte. In: G. Brunner, A. Redder, Studien zur Verwendung der Modalverben. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 226–245. Egle Alosevičienė Vilniaus universitetas Kauno humanitarinis fakultetas Department of German Philology Muitinės g. 8, LT-44280 Kaunas [email protected] 25