pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized...

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

www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835

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.

0378-2166/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.10.013

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 Lopez 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 Lopez Ferrero,

2001, 2003; Mendez Garcıa 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; Dıaz Martınez, 1999; Gulich, 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) 813–835814

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.

S. Gallardo / Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005) 813–835 815

2 The notion of ‘dominant illocution’ is equivalent to that of macro-speech act (van Dijk, 1977) or textual

function (Heinemann and Viehweger, 1991).

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; Gulich 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 Gulich and Kotschi (1987).

Discourse production activities are aimed at organizing discourse. In order to account

for these activities, Gulich 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).

As regards activities that ensure comprehension, Gulich 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 com-

plementary 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, Cların and La Nacion,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 Nacion is a traditional large format newspaper, founded in 1870, which is aimed at middle and upper class

readers. Cların is a tabloid format newspaper, founded in 1945 and aimed at middle class readers. Although it is

less formal and more popular than La Nacion, it is not so informal and sensationalist as typical tabloids.

‘‘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,


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.

� ParaphrasingParaphrasing 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 non-

smoking 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.

(1) 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 pequenas cantidades de carne con

lentejas, espinacas, fruta fresca, vitamina C.

I.2 Y despedirse de la tradicional taza de te o de cafe despues de cada comida.

(Cların, 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 destruccion:

esto es, atacar las lesiones que produce. (Cların, 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

(Gulich 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, senalan los medicos, es hacer un diagnostico y determinar

el origen de la alergia. [. . .] I.1 Lo principal, advierten los especialistas,

es hacer una consulta apenas se detectan los sıntomas. (Cların, 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.


In example (3), the variation paraphrase (Gulich 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 senalan (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.

� ExemplificationAccording to Gulich 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 toxicas pueden causar

la muerte. ‘‘Por ejemplo –aclara el especialista–, el te de tilo se toma para

dormir o para relajarse. Y esto esta muy bien. Pero pocos saben que si se

toman mas de cinco tazas genera el efecto adverso: insomnio’’. (La Nacion,

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 medico y durante un perıodo

breve,por ejemplo, un mes.’’ (La Nacion, 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 questionsFictitious 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.


(6)

?

Cual es el mejor tratamiento? Para Bravo, la hipnosis, en combinacion con

la terapia cognitivo-conductual, ha demostrado ser bastante eficaz para

tratar esta patologıa. (La Nacion, May 13, 1998)

What is the best treatment? For Bravo, hypnosis, combined with cognitive-

behavioral 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 evaluationsMetapragmatic 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

terapeuticas]. Por su parte, la doctora Portela plantea una objecion a esta

distincion formal: ‘‘Los suplementos dietarios tambien son medicamentos’’

–advierte. (La Nacion, 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.


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, porquepuede llegar a producir una ulcera’’, senalo Musi. (Cların, March 23, 1998)

‘‘[In these cases] what needs be done is to eradicate the bacterium, becauseit 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 difıcilmente intenta buscar una solucion, la familia puede

ayudarle a tomar conciencia de lo que le sucede, como paso previo a

una intervencion psicoterapeutica. (La Nacion, 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).

(10) [Aunque mucha gente se alarma cuando ve que el mercurio del termometro

trepa mas alla de los niveles considerados normales], los medicos advierten

que no hay peligro. ‘‘Es muy raro que la temperatura suba a niveles nocivos’’,

senalo Wahren. (Cların, 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 vacunacion antigripal deberıa haberse

transformado ya en una costumbre. Al respecto, un trabajo publicado por

el doctor Roberto Debbag –medico del hospital Garrahan y de Funcei,

Fundacion Centro de Estudios Infectologicos– sobre la vacunacion antigripal

en ninos, revela que sobre su estimado de 700.000 posibles receptores,

solo 22.000 son inmunizados anualmente. (La Nacion, 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


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) Ademas 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 diagnostico inicial [para elegir el

tratamiento correcto’’], concluyo Salvat. (Cların, 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 pıldora es solo una de las tres patas de un tratamiento efectivo contra la

obesidad –aclaro Jebb–. Debe pensarse como parte de un plan integral que

incluye una dieta baja en calorıas y la disminucion del tiempo destinado a

actividades sedentarias.’’ (Cların, 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.

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 osea de

la columna, pero debe ser administrado por especialistas, [ya que la distancia

que separa la dosis util de la que puede ser perjudicial es muy pequena’’],

advierte Vega. (La Nacion, 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 mas corriente tristeza puerperal el

nombre de depresion posparto, es importante distinguir entre ambas’’ –dice

Marıa Eugenia Depetris, especialista en embarazo, parto y puerperio de la clınica

Bazterrica. (La Nacion, March 24, 1999).

‘‘Although the most common puerperium sadness is popularly known as post-

childbirth depression, it is important to distinguish between them’’ –says Marıa

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 coincidio 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, esta aturdida, puede

llegar a manifestar delirios. Pero el medico aclaro que estas son

‘‘situaciones de excepcion’’, en personas que padecen enfermedades muy

graves. (Cların, 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.


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 Rodrıguez, 1999).

(17) Para luchar contra estos miedos, la Asociacion Americana de Psiquiatrıa

recomienda la terapia conductista [. . .]. (Cların, 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 automedicacion, para que no se siga ampliando la lista de

engripados y el virus no se vuelva cada vez mas resistente.

(Cların, April 13, 1998)


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 desparasitacion es gratuita.

(La Nacion, 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 medicos agregaron que ese pinchazo –que cuesta entre 22 y 25 pesos y que

cubre el PAMI y muchas obras sociales– tambien es importante para las

personas, de todas las edades, que sufren problemas bronquiales, respiratorios,

cardıacos o enfermedades como diabetes. (Cların, 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 corres-

ponding 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.


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

characterizedbyaparticular type ofconnective,but is rather identified by its semanticcontent.

(21) [Para evitar la toxocariasis], es imprescindible desparasitar periodicamente a

los animales, [. . .] y, aunque no siempre sea facil resistirse a esas

manifestaciones de afecto, evitar que den besitos a los habitantes de la casa.

(La Nacion, 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 mision imposible. (Cların, 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 Nacion, 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-a-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.

(24) El traumatologo afirmo que lo mas importante para evitar esos dolores,

que pueden convertirse en un verdadero martirio, es la actividad fısica dos o

tres veces por semana. (Cların, 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.


Table 1

Supporting function types, realization procedures, content and equivalence with RTS relations

Function type Realization Procedures Content Equivalence with

RTS relations

Subsidiary

Comprehension

ensuring

Specification Roughly, the same semantic

content as the

dominant illocution

Background,

elaborationExemplification

Fictitious questions

Metapragmatic evaluation

Acceptance Justification Favorable (or unfavorable)

consequences of (not) performing

the recommended action

Justify, motivation,

evidence

Enablement Unfavorable facts that enable

the writer to formulate the

dominant illocution.

Motivation, solutionhood

Concession Facts leading to a result

questioned or restrained by

the dominant illocution

Concession, contrast

Purpose-indicating

clause

Favorable facts resulting

from performing the

recommended action.

Purpose

Facilitation Additional information Information helping to perform

the recommended action.

Enablement

Complementary

Empathy Independent illocution Subjective information;

the writer sympathizes

with the reader

Evaluation,

interpretationSubordinate clause

Lexical items

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.


Table 2

Frequency of supporting functions

Functions Frequencies

Subsidiary, objective 1—comprehension 35 (10.7%)

Subsidiary, objective 2—acceptance

Justification 119 (36.3%)

Enablement 75 (22.9%)

Concession 36 (11.0%)

Purpose 49 (14.9%)

Subsidiary, objective 3—facilitation 5 (1.5%)

Complementary

Empathy 9 (2.7%)

Total 328 (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.


Table 3

Frequency of supporting functions according to the type of speaker

Function Expert direct quotation Expert indirect quotation Reporter Total

Comprehension 11 (31.4%) 4 (11.4%) 20 (57.1%) 35 (100%)

Acceptance

Justification 84 (70.6%) 16 (13.4%) 19 (15.9%) 119 (100%)

Enablement 40 (53.3%) 6 (8.0%) 29 (38.7%) 75 (100%)

Concession 13 (36.1%) 5 (13.9%) 18 (50.0%) 36 (100%)

Purpose 21 (42.9%) 18 (36.7%) 10 (20.4%) 49 (100%)

Facilitation 2 (40.0%) 1 (20.0%) 2 (40.0%) 5 (100%)

Empathy 1 (11.1%) 0 8 (88.9%) 9 (100%)

Total 172 (53.4%) 50 (15.2%) 106 (32.3%) 328 (100%)

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 fur Literaturwis-

senschaft 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, Lopez Ferrero, Carmen, 2001. Polifonıa en textos periodısticos con informacion cientıfica.

Lengua, discurso, texto (I Simposio Internacional de Analisis del Discurso), Visor Libros, Madrid, pp. 2647–

2664.

Calsamiglia, Helena, Lopez Ferrero, Carmen, 2003. Role and position of scientific voices: reported speech in the

media. Discourse Studies 5 (2), 147–173.

Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1991. La expresion del tema en textos de divulgacion cientıfica. Analecta Malacitana 14 (2),

335–346.

Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1993a. Reformulacion textual: el caso de las noticias de divulgacion cientıfica. Revista

Argentina de Linguıstica 9 (1/2), 69–116.

Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 1993b. Wissenschaft fur den Laien: Untersuchungen zu popularwissenschaftlichen

Nachrichten aus Argentinien. Romanistischer Verlag, Bonn.

Ciapuscio, Guiomar, 2000. Hacia una tipologıa 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.

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.

Dıaz Martınez, Felix, 1999. Asimetrıa profesional en la consulta de oncologıa: algunas constricciones con-

versacionales de la clınica. 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 Kommunika-

tion und des Wissenstransfers in der heutigen Zeit. Akademion, Hamburg, pp. 243–253.

Ducrot, Oswald, 1984. El decir y lo dicho. Paidos Comunicacion, Barcelona.

Galan Rodrıguez, Carmen, 1999. La subordinacion causal y final. In: Bosque, I., Demonte, V. (Eds.), Gramatica

Descriptiva de la Lengua Espanola 3. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid, pp. 3597–3642.

Gulich, 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.

Gulich, Elizabeth, Kotschi, Thomas, 1995. Discourse production in oral communication. In: Quasthoff, U.M.

(Ed.), Aspects of Oral Communication. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

Gulich, 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 fenomeno de la reformulacion del discurso cientıfico. Lenguas Modernas 22, 105–

112.

Heinemann, W., Viehweger, Dieter, 1991. Textlinguistik. Eine Einfurung. Niemeyer, Tubingen.

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

Appliquee 51, 8–20.

Loffler-Laurian, Anne Marie, 1984. Vulgarisation scientifique: formulation, reformulation, traduction. Langue

Francaise 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.

Mendez Garcıa de Paredes, Elena, 1999. La literalidad de la cita en los textos periodısticos. Revista Espanola de

Linguıstica 30 (1), 147–167.

Moirand, Sophie, 1997. Formes discursives de la diffusion des savoirs dans les medias. Hermes(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 Espanol. Gredos, Madrid.

Mortureux, Marie Francoise, 1982. Paraphrase et metalangage dans le dialogue de vulgarisation. Langue

Francaise(53), 48–61.

Mortureux, Marie Francoise, 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.


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: Petofi, 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. Catedra, 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, Linguıstica Espanola Actual, Revista de

Linguıstica Teorica y Aplicada, and Terminology.


pragmatic support of medical recommendations in popularized...

Documents