ABSTRACT
When analyzing argumentative discourse as a critical discussion, the problem is that the communicative function of speech acts often remains implicit. In practice, the explicit performance of a speech act is the exception rather than the rule. Explicitness is restricted to emphatic or formal usage and to situations in which the speaker wishes to exclude all possible misunderstanding. For some speech acts, an explicit formula is even not available:
Another way of indicating the communicative function of a speech act is to give an explicit characterization, preceding the speech act to which it refers ("The standpoint that I shall defend in this article is the following") or following it ("Good listening demands much more effort than good reading. That is the standpoint of which I hope to have convinced you by this lecture"). 44
The argumentation for a standpoint can also be announced in advance or specified as such afterward:
"My argument for this is that . "This was my main argument. Another argument is .
