The argumentative functions of strategic questions in Portuguese parliamentary speeches

Fabrizio Macagno

doi:10.1515/lingvan-2025-0025

Article

The argumentative functions of strategic questions in Portuguese parliamentary speeches

Fabrizio Macagno

Published/Copyright: May 28, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Linguistics Vanguard Volume 11 Issue s2

Abstract

A question is normally defined in linguistics considering its presumptive illocutionary function, namely eliciting an answer to acquire information. However, questions have several “nonstandard” functions beyond the information-seeking one. One of the most important uses of questions, almost neglected in contemporary literature, is the strategic one, consisting of altering the interlocutors’ commitment stores to support a specific viewpoint or challenge the opposite standpoint. However, what does this modification of commitments amount to, and how and why is it used in a discourse? This paper aims to analyze the variety of argumentative uses of different syntactic types of nonstandard interrogative utterances, focusing on the types of arguments they express and how they modify the commitments of the two parties. Through the analysis of the Portuguese corpus of parliamentary speeches of 2022 (ParlaMint 4.0), the most important argumentative functions that nonstandard questions play therein are presented and illustrated.

Keywords: commitments; question-answer pairs; rhetorical strategies; leading questions; discourse analysis

Corresponding author: Fabrizio Macagno, Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Lisboa, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214, Lisboa, Portugal, E-mail: fmacagno@edu.ulisboa.pt

Funding source: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia

Award Identifier / Grant number: UID/00214

Acknowledgments

Fabrizio Macagno would like to thank the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia for the research grant UID/00214 (financing granted to the Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa).

Research funding: This work was supported by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/00214).
Conflict of interests: None.

Appendix 1: Coding scheme: dialogue moves

The examples are drawn from the corpus, except for negotiation.

Category (code)	Description of category	Example
Information-sharing (IS)	Dialogue moves aimed at retrieving and providing information	‘The last question I have for you, perhaps the most important, is this: How many businesses are currently frozen by the Portuguese government? Who owns them? What are they?’
Persuasion (P)	Dialogue moves aimed at persuading the interlocutor, leading him or her to accept a specific point of view	‘In 2016, faced with oil prices sharply falling and a corresponding drop in tax revenue, what did the government do? It immediately changed the ISP, creating an additional tax and conditions for the revenue to be maintained, and I’m not even going to talk about the fact that it didn’t change it back – as it said it would! – when the cost of oil went up again.’
Decision-making (DM)	Dialogue moves aimed at making a decision	‘First, since it is clear that greater European and national investment in military defense is essential for our protection, how is its financing being considered and how can it be combined with the investment that is also necessary to achieve the European Pillar of Social Rights?’
Inquiry (IN)	Dialogue moves aimed at finding or developing proofs	‘What do these resignations have in common? Lack of working conditions, failure to resolve problems that have been going on for years, unworkable emergency schedules, disruption of essential services, lack of investment, lack of equipment, and inadequate facilities.’
Negotiation (N)	Dialogue moves aimed at solving a conflict of interests or goals, and making a joint decision satisfying the interests of both interlocutors	(not found in the corpus) Speaker 1: ‘We are determined to make reforms for paying the debt. But we cannot accept the austerity measures that have affected our country badly and that you are proposing today.’ Speaker 2: ‘You need to propose a plan of reforms that we can accept quickly.’
Rapport building (RB)	Dialogue moves aimed at reaching an accommodation in a dialogical relationship (for example, defining roles and offices)	‘Mr. President, may I have the floor?’
Metadialogue (M)	Dialogue moves aimed at clarifying the meaning of an utterance, interpreting another move (or sequence), or requesting clarification	‘Aren’t we discussing “who gives more”? Which would be handy, if we weren’t one step away from parliamentary elections.’

Appendix 2: Coding scheme: argumentation schemes

The examples are drawn from the corpus.

Argument category	Type of argument and description	Example
Practical arguments	Consequences (AC): Independently of the possible goals of the agent (not taken into account), an action is proposed as desirable or not depending only on its consequences	‘How is the European Union and Portugal going to react if the Russian army resorts to chemical weapons or to continuous genocidal practices of savage slaughter of civilians and military personnel?’
	Practical reasoning (PR): A course of action is proposed as the best means to achieve a specific goal established by the agents	‘First, since it is clear that greater European and national investment in military defense is essential for our protection, how is its financing being considered and how can it be combined with the investment that is also necessary to achieve the European Pillar of Social Rights?’
	Values (AV): Starting from a shared value, it classifies a course of action as desirable or not, setting or justifying goals or decisions	‘From now on, shouldn’t we avoid by all means that any other child, another Alan Kurdi, dies on any beach in the Mediterranean Sea?’
Commitment arguments	Commitment (CO): It suggests a future decision based on the relations between the agents and their past or present commitments	‘The answer can only be one: price regulation by law. Minister, do you or do you not have the courage to face the prices from this side and decide to lower fuel prices?’
Source-based (external) arguments	Authority (AU): The strength of the argument is grounded on the fact that the source has either a superior knowledge in a specific field (expert) or privileged access to information (position to know)	‘Don’t you watch the news? This is what they say: under your government there has been a brutal delay in investment in new railroads, which remain only promises.’
Source-based (external) arguments	Ad hominem argument (AH): It connects the character of a person with the acceptability of his or her argument or viewpoint; by attacking the character (also based on inconsistent commitments), the acceptability of the interlocutor’s position is undermined	‘In February 2016, the Socialist government increased the tax on oil products with the promise that they would lower this tax when the VAT revenue increased. And what did the Socialist government do with this promise? Nothing! It has done nothing.’
Discovery arguments	Cause to effect (CE): It is used to predict a future event from an observed cause	‘I ask you the following: what is the benefit for someone who lives in the countryside, where there is almost no public transport, of having access to the fare exemption, whether because they are disabled, unemployed, underage, or still attending compulsory school?’
	Sign (S): It connects an event, a behavior, an entity to its possible cause based on a presupposed causal relationship	‘We know that the Commission met in February, but the last record of a meeting on the APA website was from 2019. I ask you the following: has this Commission not met, worked, or prepared since 2019?’
	Best explanation (BEX): It provides an explanation of a phenomenon by considering the alternatives and selecting the best one; it is a more complex version of the argument from sign	‘As for joint purchases, I’m not sure how easy it is to implement these mechanisms, because there are always countries – usually the bigger ones – that are against them. Why? The existence of a joint purchase inevitably means one thing: some, who were already buying, will pay more and others will pay less.’
Implicit arguments (the material relation is implicit and corresponds to other arguments)	Analogy (AA): By relying on a similarity or dissimilarity between two cases, the speaker can argue that what applies to the former also applies (or does not apply) to the latter	‘Now we have transportation to help people access hospitals and primary health care. What did they do in the past? They made it difficult and cut back on transportation.’
	Example (EX): A generalization is drawn from a single or few occurrences	‘Minister, you also said that the mine doesn’t end when the exploitation ends. But, Minister, how many examples do we know of environmental liabilities once these mining operations have ended?’
Other	Other argumentative uses of questions, not representing a full argument but rather a questioning or challenge (doubt, refutation, or anticipation)	‘We did not talk about the dam of Castelo do Bode […] whose level is much lower than necessary’ ‘Necessary for what?’ (Raises a doubt concerning an argument from consequences)

References

Aristotle. 1991. Sophistical refutations. In Jonathan Barnes (ed.), The complete works of Aristotle, vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Athanasiadou, Angeliki. 1991. The discourse function of questions. Pragmatics 1(1). 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.02ath.Search in Google Scholar

Bardenstein, Ruti. 2022. The case of question-based exclamatives: From pragmatic rhetorical function to semantic meaning. Intercultural Pragmatics 19(2). 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2022-2003.Search in Google Scholar

Borillo, Andrée. 1981. Quelques aspects de la question rhétorique en français. DRLAV: Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Vincennes 25(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.3406/drlav.1981.969.Search in Google Scholar

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1954. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/DLCL.marcus_tullius_cicero-rhetorica_ad_herennium.1954Search in Google Scholar

Clayman, Steven. 1988. Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35(4). 474–492. https://doi.org/10.2307/800598.Search in Google Scholar

Clayman, Steven & John Heritage. 2002. Questioning presidents: Journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U. S. Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4). 749–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x.Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1969. Présupposés et sous-entendus. Langue Française 4. 30–43. https://doi.org/10.3406/lfr.1969.5456.Search in Google Scholar

Ducrot, Oswald. 1982.La notion de sujet parlant. Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage (Université de Grenoble) 2. 65–93.Search in Google Scholar

Eemeren, Frans van & Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Floris.10.1515/9783110846089Search in Google Scholar

Erjavec, Tomaž, Matyáš Kopp, Maciej Ogrodniczuk, Petya Osenova, Darja Fišer, Hannes Pirker, Tanja Wissik, Matyáš Kopp, Starkaður Barkarson, Steinþór Steingrímsson, Çağrı Çöltekin, Jesse de Does, Katrien Depuydt, Tommaso Agnoloni, Giulia Venturi, María Calzada Pérez, Luciana D. de Macedo, Costanza Navarretta, Giancarlo Luxardo, Matthew Coole, Paul Rayson, Vaidas Morkevičius, Tomas Krilavičius, Roberts Darǵis, Orsolya Ring, Ruben van Heusden, Maarten Marx & Darja Fišer. 2024. ParlaMint II: Advancing comparable parliamentary corpora across Europe. Language Resources and Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-024-09798-w.Search in Google Scholar

Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In Frans van Eemeren (ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.1.12fahSearch in Google Scholar

Giannakidou, Anastasia & Alda Mari. 2025. Three strategies for Socrative inquisitiveness in reflective questions. Linguistic Vanguard, 11(s2). 89–105.Search in Google Scholar

Gous, Georgina & Jacqueline M. Wheatcroft. 2020. Directive leading questions and preparation technique effects on witness accuracy. Sage Open 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899053.Search in Google Scholar

Grésillon, Almuth. 1981. Interrogation et interlocution. DRLAV: Documentation et Recherche en Linguistique Allemande Vincennes 25(1). 61–75. https://doi.org/10.3406/drlav.1981.971.Search in Google Scholar

Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41–58. New York, NY: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368811_003Search in Google Scholar

Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra. 1984. Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49. 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5.Search in Google Scholar

Harris, Sandra. 1991. Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In Paddy Scannel (ed.), Broadcast talk, 76–99. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Hautli-Janisz, Annette, Katarzyna Budzynska, Conor McKillop, Brian Plüss, Valentin Gold & Chris Reed. 2022. Questions in argumentative dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics 188. 56–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.029.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2002. The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34(10–11). 1427–1446. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John. 2003. Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In Phillip Glenn, Jennifer Mandelbaum & Curtis LeBaron (eds.), Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper, 57–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Heritage, John & Geoffrey Raymond. 2012. Navigating epistemic landscapes: Acquiescence, agency and resistance in responses to polar questions. In Jan de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 179–192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.013Search in Google Scholar

Hickey, Leo. 1993. Presupposition under cross-examination. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 6(16). 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01458741.Search in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Search in Google Scholar

Huitink, Luuk. 2021. Early orators. In Mathieu de Bakker & Irene de Jong (eds.), Speech in Ancient Greek literature, 475–498. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004498815_023Search in Google Scholar

Hultgren, Anna Kristina & Deborah Cameron. 2010. “How may I help you?”: Questions, control and customer care in call centre telephone talk. In Alice Freed & Susan Ehrlich (eds.), Why do you ask?”: The function of questions in institutional settings, 322–342. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2021. Evasive answers vs. aggressive questions. Parliamentary confrontational practices in Prime Minister’s Questions. In Cornelia Ilie (ed.), Questioning and answering practices across contexts and cultures, 35–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.323.02iliSearch in Google Scholar

Ilie, Cornelia. 2022. How to argue with questions and answers: Argumentation strategies in parliamentary deliberation. Languages 7(3). 205. https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7030205.Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas. 1986. News interviews: A pragmalinguistic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pb.vii.4Search in Google Scholar

Kikteva, Zlata, Kamila Gorska, Wassiliki Siskou, Annette Hautli & Chris Reed. 2022. The keystone role played by questions in debate. In Chloe Braud, Christian Hardmeier, Junyi Jessy Li, Sharid Loaiciga, Michael Strube & Amir Zeldes (eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd workshop on computational approaches to discourse, 54–63. Gyeongju, Republic of Korea: International Conference on Computational Linguistics.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen. 2012. Interrogative intimations: On a possible social economics of interrogatives. In Jan de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 11–32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.003Search in Google Scholar

Lucchini, Costanza, Andrea Rocci & Giulia D’Agostino. 2022. Annotating argumentation within questions: Prefaced questions as a genre specific argumentative pattern in earnings conference calls. In Floriana Grasso, Nancy Green, Jodi Schneider & Simon Wells (eds.), CMNA’22: Workshop on computational models of natural argument, 61–66. Cardiff: CEUR Workshop Proceedings.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2018. A dialectical approach to presupposition. Intercultural Pragmatics 15(2). 291–313. https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0008.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2022. Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics 191. 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.022.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2017. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies 19(2). 148–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Sarah Bigi. 2020. Analyzing dialogue moves in chronic care communication – dialogical intentions and customization of recommendations for the assessment of medical deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9(2). 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18044.mac.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton. 2010. Dichotomies and oppositions in legal argumentation. Ratio Juris 23(2). 229–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2010.00452.x.Search in Google Scholar

Mendes, Amália, Pierre Lejeune & Carolina Nunes. 2020. Perguntas-respostas em textos escritos: Uma análise no âmbito das relações discursivas. Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Linguística (7). 226–241.10.26334/2183-9077/rapln7ano2020a14Search in Google Scholar

Moldovan, Andrei. 2022. Questions, presuppositions and fallacies. Argumentation 36(2). 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09566-6.Search in Google Scholar

Quintilianus, Marcus Fabius. 1996. In Harold Edgeworth Butler (ed.), Institutio Oratoria. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rigotti, Eddo & Sara Greco-Morasso. 2019. Inference in argumentation: A topics-based approach to argument schemes. Amsterdam: Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5Search in Google Scholar

Rocci, Andrea. 2007. Epistemic modality and questions in dialogue. The case of Italian interrogative constructions in the subjunctive mood. In Louis de Saussure, Jacques Moeschler & Genoveva Puskas (eds.), Tense, mood and aspect, 129–153. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789401204446_010Search in Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerry. 2012. Formal features of questions. In Jan de Ruiter (ed.), Questions: Formal, functional and interactional perspectives, 103–122. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139045414.008Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438Search in Google Scholar

Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca. 2009. Manoeuvring strategically with rhetorical questions. In Frans van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, 15–23. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_2Search in Google Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1984. Questions and responses in English conversation. Lund: Gleerlup.Search in Google Scholar

Sternau, Marit, Mira Ariel, Rachel Giora & Ofer Fein. 2017. Deniability and explicatures. In Rachel Giora & Michael Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally, 97–120. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110546095-006Search in Google Scholar

Tsui, Amy. 2013. A functional description of questions. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis, 89–110. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 1981. The fallacy of many questions. Logique et Analyse 95–96. 291–314.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas & Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Search in Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Christopher Reed & Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511802034Search in Google Scholar

Wan, Helen. 2023. “Hypophora” and “question cascade” in Cantonese political discourse: The stance triangle and the use of rhetorical moves and utterance final particles. Text & Talk 43(5). 647–670. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0219.Search in Google Scholar

Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48(3–4). 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3–4.197.10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197Search in Google Scholar

Woods, John & Douglas Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110816082Search in Google Scholar

Zeyrek, Deniz & Amália Mendes. 2025. Questions in the TED-Multilingual Discourse Bank and the development of an annotation scheme. Linguistic Vanguard, 11(s2). 215–228.10.1515/lingvan-2025-0035Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-07-12

Accepted: 2025-03-21

Published Online: 2025-05-28

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2025-0025

Keywords for this article

commitments; question-answer pairs; rhetorical strategies; leading questions; discourse analysis