194 Forms of Say
a comparison with to be sure , admits that it “has its good side.” Garner ( 2003 )
observes that having said that “is a frequent source of DANGLERS” when not
anchored to a speaker in the main clause. He advises deleting the “casualism” as
it “doesn’t say much anyway.” Quirk et al. ( 1985 : 623n.), however, note that hav-
ing said that “has become so stereotyped that it can violate” the subject- attach-
ment rule in a sentence such as Having said that, the economy seems unlikely to
show marked improvement for some time. Curme ( 1931 : 158– 159) too sees the
dangling or hanging participle as “established” in this case because the construc-
tion is no longer connected with a subject at all (cf. also Poutsma 1905 : 720).
S a fi re ( 2002 : D16) astutely describes the function of that said as a rhetorical
device with which the speaker fi rst presents the point to be negated, then his or
her own argument. He notes that that said has two senses:
(a) ‘however,’ which balances what goes before with what goes after, and
(b) ‘nevertheless, in spite of that, even so,’ which allows for “casting asper-
sions on all that has preceded.”
In a discussion of a variety of concessive forms (French quand même ‘all the
same,’ though , Scottish clause- fi nal but , and German aber ), Beeching ( 2009 )
introduces the notion of “procatalepsis,” “a rhetorical fi gure by which an oppo-
nent’s objections are anticipated and answered” (OED, s.v. procatalepsis , n.).
According to Beeching ( 2009 ), in cases of procatalepsis, the speaker fi rst con-
cedes that there is an opposing view: this functions as a hedge/ mitigator. The
speaker is then able to more convincingly present his or her own argument: this
functions as a booster. She argues that the forms discussed function as positive
politeness markers: the speaker is attending to/ protecting the hearer’s face and
thus comes across as likeable and having a sense of fair play. The forms are
also interactional as they build solidarity between interlocutors.
Let us look, for example, at the larger context of (1), from an article by
Stephen Kinzer in the New York Times entitled “Plans for museum buoy
Armenians and dismay Turks” (April 24, 2002, p. E1) on plans by Armenians
to build an Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial:
Mr. Sanberk, who is a member of this group, said he feared the new museum would
make resolution of Turkish- Armenian issues more diffi cult. # “It is obvious that there
are shining pages and dark ones in the history of all peoples and countries,” he said.
“Each nation has to assume its history as a whole. This said , it seems to me also obvi-
ous that the idea of the museum is not the way forward to reach the objectives of the
reconciliation process between Turks and Armenians, not least since the Armenians are
a vibrant part of Turkey’s life today, and Turkey and Armenia are two countries that
are destined to be neighbors and share a common future.” # “If those people who plan
the museum are simply mourning human suffering, no one can quarrel with them,” Mr.
Sanberk said. “But I fear their aims are more political than humanitarian.”
Mr. Sanberk (a Turk who objects to the museum) fi rst admits the addressee’s
position and hence attends to their face: “It is obvious that there are shining