{"id":5046,"date":"2021-10-21T11:00:25","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T09:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5046"},"modified":"2025-06-22T17:50:08","modified_gmt":"2025-06-22T15:50:08","slug":"indicator-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/indicator-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Indicator"},"content":{"rendered":"

Argumentative INDICATORS<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

Ancient rhetorical theory does not focus much on the connectives that structure argumentative passages. In contemporary times, neither Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca ([1958])\u00a0 nor Lausberg (1960) pay specific attention to connectives in their respective monumental recreations of the classical system.<\/p>\n

However, Toulmin\u2019s \u201clayout of argument<\/a>\u201d emphasizes the role of linguistic connectives in articulating the elements of the argumentative cell (1958). The warrant is introduced by since<\/em><\/strong>; the backing by on account of<\/em><\/strong>; the claim (conclusion) by so, <\/em><\/strong>and the rebuttal (counter-discourse) by unless<\/em><\/strong>. However, Toulmin does not discuss connectives further.
\nConnectives are a central issue in linguistic approaches to argumentation (Ducrot & al.<\/em> 1980).<\/p>\n

1. Indicators<\/span><\/h2>\n

Argument analysis relies on three levels of indicators:<\/p>\n

(1) Boundary indicator<\/strong>s<\/em>, which help to delineate the argumentative sequence.<\/span>
\n(2)\u00a0Internal indicators<\/em><\/strong>, which help to identify and articulate the argument and the conclusion within the argument sequence.<\/span>
\n(3)\u00a0Argument scheme indicators<\/strong>,\u00a0<\/em>which help identify the argument scheme embodied in a given argument.<\/span><\/p>\n

Various linguistic tools can be used for these operations and can functionally be considered \u00ab\u00a0argument indicators,\u00a0\u00bb not just discourse particles or full semantic words. This label most often refers to the intermediate level of the argument-conclusion structure, where connectives play a prominent role.<\/p>\n

1.1 Multifunctionality of Connective<\/span> Particles<\/span><\/h2>\n

The terminology of connectives and markers of discursive or argumentative structure is rich. Schematically, the framework for the discussion is as follows.
\n\u2014 In logic, logical <\/span>connectives<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/strong> build complex propositions from simple or complex propositions.
\n\u2014 In natural language,<\/strong> linguistic connectives<\/em><\/strong><\/span> belong to the category of discursive particles<\/em>. Grammatically, these\u00a0particles<\/em> include conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs, interjections, etc. Some discursive particles such as well<\/em>, um<\/em>, right <\/em><\/strong>etc., are particularly associated with conversational speech.<\/em><\/strong>
\n\u2014\u00a0Natural language connectives are multifunctional.<\/span><\/strong> Some connectives retain their non-argumentative<\/em> functions, even in argumentative contexts. For instance, the enumerative and sequential connectives, \u00ab\u00a0first, second, and finally\u00a0\u00bb<\/em><\/strong> can be used to list agenda items or\u00a0 arguments. In an argumentative context, the \u201clist effect\u201d itself can be argumentative, see case<\/a>–by-case<\/a> argument; linked<\/a> arguments.<\/p>\n

Other connectives such as since, because, so, therefore, <\/em>etc., are particularly useful for marking a segment of discourse as an argument or as a conclusion. However while their argumentative function is predominant<\/em>, it is not exclusive<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In summary, connectives are multifunctional particles that can signal<\/span> an argument-conclusion relationship.<\/p>\n

1.2 Connective Verbs<\/span><\/h3>\n

The argument-conclusion structure, \u00ab\u00a0A<\/strong> so<\/em> B\u00a0\u00bb<\/strong> can also be articulated by a complete verbal construction:<\/p>\n

[A]<\/strong>; this leads me to conclude that [B<\/strong>]\n

1.3 Connectives Articulate the Semantic Content of Entire Discourses.<\/span><\/h2>\n

Logical connectives articulate precise sets of well-defined simple or complex logical propositions. <\/em>In contrast, natural language connectives articulate propositions and discourses of undefined length. In the preceding example, [A] <\/strong>and [B] <\/strong>refer to passages of an unspecified length.<\/p>\n

Linguistic connectives articulate meanings<\/em> inferred from such indefinite spans of discourse. For example, a statement such as \u201cand <\/em>so [Fr. ainsi<\/em>] Commissioner Valentin put the whole gang in jail<\/em>\u201d could conclude a novel. The left scope [1] of the connective so<\/em><\/strong> sums up all the events since the beginning of Commissioner Valentin’s investigation. The same is true for the connector but<\/em>,<\/strong> which does not articulate propositions but rather two semantic-pragmatic contents, see the example below, \u00a73.1). See orientation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1.4 Multifunctionality of Argument<\/span> Indicators<\/span><\/h2>\n

Argument indicators are not unifunctional words; not all their occurrences are argumentative. Discourse following so<\/em><\/strong> or thus<\/em><\/strong> is not necessarily a conclusion, and the discourse following because<\/em><\/strong> is not necessarily an argument pointing to a conclusion. Thus<\/em><\/strong> and because <\/em><\/strong>have non-argumentative uses,<\/em> and excellent arguments do notnecessarily use therefore<\/em><\/strong> or because<\/em><\/strong>. This means, on the one hand, that peppering a speech with because<\/em><\/strong> and therefore<\/em><\/strong> does not necessarily make it a good argument. Aristotle had already recognized this strategy and rightly considered it vain, see expression<\/a>. On the other hand, an interpreter who waits for a so<\/em><\/strong> or\u00a0 because<\/em><\/strong> to realize he is in an argumentative situation lacks argumentative, interpretive and interactional competence. Connective particles limit interpretive possibilities by evoking a potential argumentative structure. However, they are not a summons to rouse a sleepy recipient from interpretive torpor.
\nThe discussion of a particle’s argumentative value relates to the argumentative sequence itself. A passage is clearly argumentative if it can be linked it to an argumentative question that sets out both a discourse and a counter-discourse. The argumentative function of a particle is contextual, it is activated when it appears in argumentative contexts.
\nThis general condition does not preclude the practice of the ars subtilior’s<\/em> practice of reconstructing implicit arguments and conclusions.<\/p>\n

When analyzing the linking phenomenon in natural language, it is important to consider the complexity of the grammar of linking terms or expressions.
\n\u2014 Their grammatical category and their specific semantic and syntactic properties.
\n\u2014 Their multifunctionality as argumentative particles.<\/p>\n

2. Thus<\/em>, therefore<\/em>, so<\/em>\u2026, since<\/em>, because\u2026<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

je pense que:: toutes ces personnes- et puis aux personnes aussi qui sont venues donc<\/strong> pendant les trente glorieuses on leur doit quand m\u00eame une certaine forme de respect.<\/p>\n

I think that:: all these people\u2014 and then also the people who came therefore<\/strong> [Fr. donc<\/em><\/strong>] during the post-war boom years, we still owe them\u00a0a certain amount of respect.<\/span><\/p>\n

No participant ever doubted that \u201cthese people\u201d came \u201cduring the glorious thirties\u201d. The reasoning here is<\/p>\n

(Argument)<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0they came as workers<\/em> [donc<\/strong> = therefore] during the post-war boom years\u201d,
\n(Conclusion)<\/strong> <\/em>they are entitled to respect.<\/p>\n

In fact, donc<\/em> (=therefore), resumes a statement that is, functionally, not a conclusion<\/em> but an argument<\/em>.<\/span> The structure is\u00a0certainly not:<\/p>\n

*<\/strong> we owe respect to all these people, therefore<\/strong>\u00a0[Fr. donc<\/em><\/strong>] they came during the post-war boom years.<\/span><\/p>\n

The following intervention is made by a property manager, M<\/strong>, during a conciliation meeting with his tenant, T<\/strong>. The manager recaps his position: he demands a monthly rent increase of 12\u20ac\u00a0 (a very modest amount)\u00a0 [3]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Moi j\u2019avais d=mand\u00e9 madame T<\/strong> doit s\u2019en rappeler\\ j\u2019avais d=mand\u00e9 si v=voulez\u2019 \u25ca euh: donc<\/strong><\/span> euh: quatre vingt francs si v=voulez\u2019 pour arriver \u00e0 mille trente, par mois, c=qui m=paraissait tr\u00e8s raisonnable, tr\u00e8s raisonnable\u2019 \u25ca vu l\u2019appartement\/ et vu son emplacement\/ \u25ca vous savez qu\u2019un F3 disons tout d=m\u00eame au deuxi\u00e8me \u00e9tage\u2019 \u25ca relativement confor- table\\ [\u2026]\n

[<\/strong><\/span>I asked\/ Mrs. T<\/strong> certainly remembers\\ I asked if you want uh,\u00a0so<\/strong>\u00a0[donc<\/strong>]<\/u><\/span> uh: eighty francs f you want to get to a thousand thirty a month=]<\/span>claim<\/sub><\/strong> [<\/strong><\/span>that seemed very reasonable, very reasonable]<\/span>modal<\/sub><\/strong> [<\/strong><\/span>considering the apartment\/ and considering its location\/ (..) you know a three-room apartment let\u2019s say all the same on the second floor’ (..) relatively comfortable\\ [\u2026] ]<\/span>argument
\n<\/sub><\/strong>Corpus Rent Negotiation (conciliation commission),<\/em> Clapi Database of spoken French. Our brackets, italics and markings.<\/span><\/p>\n

T<\/strong>.\u2019s claim is articulated to the context by so<\/strong><\/em> [Fr. donc<\/em>, meaning \u201cso, therefore\u201d], which sounds quite standard. However,\u00a0 in this claim so<\/em> <\/strong>does not introduce a conclusion drawn from what comes before, which has already been expressed and repeated.
\nThe so<\/em><\/strong> has its classical recall<\/em>, resumptive<\/em> function; it just happens that the repeated segment is a claim. Thus, this is an example of a non-argumentative<\/em> donc <\/em>= [so, therefore]<\/strong> accompanying a claim, in an strongly <\/em>argumentative context.\u00a0 <\/em>Nonetheless, donc<\/strong> is not here a conclusion marker, but a resumption marker. It just so happens that the repeated segment is a claim.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other non argumentative functions of so, then, because<\/em><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

can be used to extract and thematize the implicit content of a sentence<\/span>:
\n\u2014 An encyclopaedic content: All this happened in Greenland, so far up north.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\u2014 A semantic content:<\/p>\n

S1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0Peter stopped smoking.
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Then you know that he used to smoke?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 An implication of the act of saying something:<\/p>\n

S1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 That dress suits you very well!
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Because the others don’t?<\/em><\/p>\n

3. But<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

But<\/em><\/strong> reverses the argumentative orientation of the propositions it introduces.<\/strong> Nevertheless, no more than so<\/em><\/strong>, but<\/em><\/strong> is not an inherently argumentative particle, and the argumentative framework and vocabulary cannot account for all its occurrences. In particular but<\/em><\/strong> reverses not only argumentative orientations but also narrative and descriptive ones.<\/p>\n

3.1 But <\/em>[Fr. mais<\/em>], reverses narrative and descriptive orientations.<\/span><\/h2>\n

In general, but<\/em><\/strong> is used to reverse any type of orientation<\/em>: narrative, argumentative, or descriptive. In the following text, but<\/strong> is used to introduce a new narrative development:<\/p>\n

August 27: On Friday, I remembered that the annual tax on my car was due to expire. Since I am not one of those people who leave things until the last minute , I went to the tax office to renew it. There was an agent there\u00a0 for me, or almost. In just a few minutes, everything was done for me over the Internet. I’m all set until next year. But<\/u><\/strong> in the meantime…<\/span>
\nHe walked, and as he walked, tirelessly, with his head held high, swaying to his regular rhythm, dreaming of next year [\u2026] ([4]<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

Such non-argumentative uses of but<\/em><\/strong> are quite common<\/span>. The following passage contains perhaps the most famous occurrence of but<\/em><\/strong> in all of French literature. Emma is the heroine of Gustave Flaubert\u2019s novel, Madame Bovary<\/em>. The entire passage is narrative-descriptive.First, it develops a semantic isotopy: \u201ctravel, love, beauty, exotic life, hammocks and gondolas.\u201d But<\/em><\/strong> articulates this first isotopy into a second, \u201chusband snoring, children coughing, irritating screeching noises and provincial life\u201d. It would not make sense to impose an argumentative analysis on such a text.<\/p>\n

Emma was not asleep; she pretended to be; and while he dozed off by her side she awakened to other dreams.<\/span><\/span>
\nTo the gallop of four horses she was carried away for a week towards a new land, whence they would return no more. They went on and on, their arms entwined, without a word. Often from the top of a mountain they suddenly glimpsed some splendid city with domes, and bridges, and ships, forests of citron trees, and cathedrals of white marble, on whose pointed steeples were storks\u2019 nests. They went at a walking-pace because of the great flag-stones, and on the ground there were bouquets of flowers, offered you by women dressed in red bodices. They heard the chiming of bells, the neighing of mules, together with the murmur of guitars and the noise of fountains, whose rising spray refreshed heaps of fruit arranged like a pyramid at the foot of pale statues that smiled beneath playing waters. And then, one night they came to a fishing village, where brown nets were drying in the wind along the cliffs and in front of the huts. It was there that they would stay; they would live in a low, flat-roofed house, shaded by a palm-tree, in the heart of a gulf, by the sea. They would row in gondolas, swing in hammocks, and their existence would be easy and large as their silk gowns, warm and star-spangled as the nights they would contemplate. However, in the immensity of this future that she conjured up, nothing special stood forth; the days, all magnificent, resembled each other like waves; and it swayed in the horizon, infinite, harmonized, azure, and bathed in sunshine. But<\/u><\/strong> the child began to cough in her cot or Bovary snored more loudly,<\/span> and Emma did not fall asleep till morning, when the dawn whitened the windows, and when little Justin was already in the square taking down the shutters of the chemist\u2019s shop.<\/span>
\nGustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary<\/em>, [1856][5]<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

In these two examples, but<\/em> is not argumentative, it marks an isotopic shift.<\/span><\/p>\n

3.2 Other Functions of but<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

But as an <\/em>Indicator of an Unresolved Contradiction<\/span> \u2013\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0In the standard argumentative use of but<\/em>, the inferred contradiction \u00ab\u00a0E1<\/strong> but<\/em> E2″<\/strong> is resolved in favor of E2, the coordinated construction being co-oriented with E2. I<\/strong>n other cases but<\/em> articulates two opposing arguments without argumentative resolution.<\/p>\n

S1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0What should they do today?
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0Some want to go to the forest, but others want to go the beach.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

Assuming that S2<\/strong> continues his discourse with a tentative conclusion, conclusion (a) sounds strange, and (b) sounds rather standard:<\/p>\n

*(a) So we’re going to the beach.
\n<\/em>(b) We don’t know what to do, we’ll have to talk about that.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

But<\/em> as an Indicator of Argumentative Dissociation<\/span> \u2013<\/strong> The concept of argumentative dissociation was introduced by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca. Dissociation is defined as the splitting of an elementary concept\u00a0 into two antagonistic meanings, one positive and the other negative, in order to avoid a contradiction ([1958], 550-609), see dissociation.<\/a><\/p>\n

S1 \u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0I thought you wanted reform?
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0We do want reform, but<\/strong> real reform<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other functions
\n\u2014<\/strong> Correction<\/strong><\/span>: in reference to the \u201cbeautiful blue Danube\u201d,<\/em><\/p>\n

In Vienna, the Danube is not blue,<\/em> but dirty gray<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Preface<\/strong><\/span> to a second turn of speech, aligned with the first.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

S1\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0Once again, Peter has failed to graduate
\n<\/em>S2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0But that\u2019s just like me!<\/em><\/span> \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

4. Other Constructions Bring an Argument to a\u00a0 Conclusion<\/span><\/h2>\n

An argumentative thus<\/em><\/strong> can be paraphrased using a set of verbal constructions that link the argument to the conclusion:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
[left context]<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n\n

\u00a0therefore<\/em>, from there<\/em>, hence<\/em>, that is why<\/em>,<\/span>
\nthis means<\/em>, proves, clearly shows that…<\/em><\/span>
\n\u00a0 one can (then) conclude that…<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

[conclusion]<\/strong><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

4.1 Connective predicates<\/span><\/h2>\n

Markers of argumentative structure would thus be unduly restricted to \u201csmall connective words.\u201d Other constructions, combining anaphoric terms, verbs, or nouns can exlicitly play this role.
\nSome verbs predicate a conclusion on an argument or an argument on a conclusion. These connective predicates are, in fact, the only undeniable and unambiguous argumentative indicators<\/em>. We must distinguish between two cases.
\n<\/em>In what follows, argument<\/em> is taken in the sense that it has in the theory of argumentation, not in the sense of \u201cargument of a mathematical function\u201d, see argument<\/a>)<\/p>\n

(1) Conclusion predicate<\/em>:<\/strong> the conclusion is predicated on the argument.
\nSubject (argument) + Predicate (conclusion)<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 from<\/em> [argument] I infer (that)<\/em> [conclusion].<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

V = to conclude, to infer, to deduce\u2026<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 [argument] makes it possible to deduce (that)<\/em> [conclusion].<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

V = to induce, to show, to demonstrate…<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 [argument] proves<\/em> [conclusion]<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

V = to prove, to show, to demonstrate, to support, to corroborate, to suggest, to go in the direction of, to motivate, to legitimate, to justify, to entitle, to believe<\/em> (say, think\u2026<\/em>)<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) Argument predicate<\/em>:<\/strong> The argument is predicated on the conclusion.
\nSubject (Conclusion) + Predicate (Argument)<\/span><\/p>\n

[conclusion] ensues from [argument]:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

V<\/strong> = to ensue, to <\/em>result, to <\/em>follow, to <\/em>derive\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

To argue<\/em> is not a conclusion predicate, but rather a simple verb denoting speech activity. In \u201cX<\/strong> argues for such-and-such a conclusion\u201d, the subject X <\/strong>must be [+ human]; it cannot be an argument, or a description of a state of affairs. This construction contrasts with the construction \u201cX<\/strong> suggests such-and-such a conclusion\u201d where X<\/strong> can be a discourse or a human being, see (to) argue<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Failing to recognise these distinctions can be particularly damaging in the teaching of argumentation.<\/p>\n

4.2 Constructions that Frame Argumentation<\/span><\/h2>\n

All words used to talk about arguments and argumentation can serve as markers of argumentative structure and argumentative function. This class of nominal indicators includes the entire lexicon of argumentation, i.e. the metalanguage of argumentation:(counter)argument, (counter-)conclusion, point of view\u2026, premise, objection, refutation\u2026<\/em><\/p>\n

This is my conclusion, a consequence, a serious objection, an argument to be considered<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n

[D1, argument]<\/strong> is given as a good reason to admit, to do [D2, conclusion]<\/strong><\/em> <\/span>
\n[D1, argument]<\/strong> is stated, stated for the purpose of making [D2, conclusion]<\/strong> acceptable or convincing.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

the conclusion, the premise, the objection that<\/em>…; <\/span>
\nagainst this point of view<\/em>…<\/span><\/p>\n

We can be sure that \u201cto<\/em> build the school here, the land is cheaper<\/em>\u201d is an argument, because it can be satisfactorily paraphrased as follows:<\/p>\n

A good reason to build the school here is that the land is cheaper.
\nThe fact that the land is cheaper justifies the decision to build the school there.<\/p>\n

\n

[1] <\/a>The left scope<\/em> of a connective is the left segment of discourse taken into account for the semantic interpretation of the passage; the same applies for the right scope<\/em>.
\n<\/span>[2] Corpus Debate on Immigration<\/em>, Clapi<\/em> Database of Spoken French<\/span>
\nhttp:\/\/clapi.univ-lyon2.fr\/V3_Feuilleter.php? Num_corpus = 35]. (09-30-2013)<\/span>
\n[3]<\/a> Corpus Negotiation on rents – conciliation commission)<\/em>, Clapi Database of spoken French. Our brackets, italics and markings. <\/span>http:\/\/clapi.univ-lyon2.fr\/V3_Feuilleter.php?num_corpus=13]. (09-30-2013)<\/span>
\n[4]<\/a> http:\/\/impassesud.joueb.com\/news\/mali-pendant-ce-temps-la-il-il-marchait<\/a>]. 07-28-2010. Our emphasis.<\/span>
\n[5]<\/a> Quoted from Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary<\/em>. Trans. by Eleanor Marx-Aveling. Ebook, 2006. <\/span>http:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/files\/2413\/2413-0.txt<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Argumentative INDICATORS Ancient rhetorical theory does not focus much on the connectives that structure argumentative passages. In contemporary times, neither Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca ([1958])\u00a0 nor Lausberg (1960) pay specific attention to connectives in their respective monumental recreations of the classical system. However, Toulmin\u2019s \u201clayout of argument\u201d emphasizes the role of linguistic connectives in articulating the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5046","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5046","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5046"}],"version-history":[{"count":11,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5046\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14429,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5046\/revisions\/14429"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5046"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5046"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5046"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

So<\/em><\/strong> can be a conclusion marker, among many other things.\u00a0 For instance, it can signal the resumption of the main topic of a text or conversation after it has been temporarily put aside. Complicating things further, this non-argumentative <\/em>resumptive function can be found everywhere, and especially in argumentative<\/em> contexts. The following example is taken from a lively debate on the attribution of French nationality to immigrants living in France[2]<\/a>:<\/p>\n