86 Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
us now look at their semantic-pragmatic behaviour in a sample of instances from
the BNC. No frequencies are given, the aim of this section is to illustrate Butler’s
findings presented in Section 2.3.1 BasicallyCollocation with concepts of similarity is – as pointed out above – characteristic
of basically. Example (1) illustrates this:
(1) Most tabloid newspapers are emphatically graphic in the presentation of
their headlines and subheadings. But when recognised as an interpretation
of top weighting, their methods are basically similar to those of fine artists
who seek monumentality in their work. (BNC, written, academic)
What is expressed in Extract (1) is that the graphic form of headlines in tabloids
on the one hand and methods of presentation of fine artists on the other hand
differ in many obvious respects (which would normally prevent one from seeing
similarity at all) but are nevertheless similar in what is at issue here, viz. the order
of top weighting, with the heavier layer or most important information at the top.
Another example is (2) below:
(2) The structure, water masses and sea ice cover of Arctic and Southern
Oceans are compared; the central Arctic Ocean, permanently ice-covered,
has no direct equivalent in the south, except in the much smaller gyres
of the Weddell and Ross Seas where pack ice circulates. Despite their
differences, the two oceans support basically similar food webs, with high
seasonal productivity from small overwintering standing crops.
(BNC, written, academic)
In (2) the differences between the two Oceans (an important one of which is
exposed in the preceding sentence, viz. the ice cover on the Arctic Ocean) are
contrasted with something which they share. This similarity is foregrounded as
more relevant in the context. Greenbaum’s proviso that the adverbs express that
something is true “in principle, despite minor qualifications that might be made”
refers to the pragmatic context which favours the use of these adverbs. Speakers
use basically in contexts where they wish to abstract from the “qualifications” or
objections that might be raised. The use of basically is in that sense often ‘het-
eroglossic’ in the sense of Martin and White (2005), in that divergent views are
recognised. In other words, there is no reason to use basically unless one can think
of aspects which would contradict the assertion. The qualifications or the contrary
views may be made explicit or left implicit. Here are some examples to illustrate