In many linguistic approaches and theories, a distinction is made between adverbs that are propositional (representational, ideational, referential) and adverbs that are non-propositional (interpersonal, (inter)subjective, evaluative, parenthetical); i.e. between what is said (the proposition expressed) and a speaker’s stance on what is said (e.g. the speaker’s attitude towards, evaluation of, or commitment to the message conveyed). As is well-known, however, the latter group, including such diverse adverbs as briefly, frankly, sadly, allegedly, hopefully, probably, obviously and cleverly, differ substantially in terms of their discourse-pragmatic or semantic function, truth-conditionality and syntactic and prosodic behaviour. This paper addresses the question of whether, given this functional and formal heterogeneity, it is helpful, or even possible, to recognize a category of stance adverbs. It is argued that our understanding of these adverbs will benefit from a stricter application of very specific functional and formal criteria, allowing for the distinction of a number of well-defined subclasses of adverbs with partly overlapping, but nevertheless defining functional and formal properties. Subsequently, it is demonstrated how the theory of Functional Discourse Grammar (FDG), a theory characterized by a “form-oriented function-to-form” approach (Hengeveld and Mackenzie, 2008: 38–39), making use of different levels and layers of linguistic analysis, can be used to bring out both the similarities and the differences between the various subclasses of stance adverbs without having to resort to a single dichotomy (e.g. ideational vs. interpersonal; truth-conditional vs. non-truth-conditional, propositional vs. non-propositional; parenthetical vs. non-parenthetical). In addition, it is shown how important concepts and distinctions in the literature on (inter)subjectivity, such as the distinction between semantic and pragmatic subjectivity, and between subjectivity and intersubjectivity, can be dealt with within the framework of FDG.

在许多语言学方法和理论中，命题副词（代表性，概念性，指称性）和非命题副词（人际，主观，评价，括号）之间有区别。即在所说的内容（表达的主张）和说话者对所说的内容的立场之间（例如，说话者对传达的信息的态度，评价或承诺）。但是，众所周知，后一组包括各种副词，如简短，坦率，可悲，据称，希望，可能，显然和聪明在语篇功能，语用功能或语义功能，真理条件，句法和韵律行为方面有很大不同。本文讨论的问题是，鉴于这种功能和形式上的异质性，识别姿势副词的类别是否有帮助，甚至可能。有人认为，我们对这些副词的理解将得益于对非常具体的功能和形式标准的更严格应用，从而可以区分许多具有部分重叠但定义功能和形式属性的副词的良好定义的子类。随后，论证了功能话语语法理论（FDG），该理论的特征在于“形式导向的功能到形式”方法（Hengeveld和Mackenzie，2008：38-39），利用不同层次和不同层次的语言分析，可以得出立场副词各个子类之间的相似点和不同点，而不必诉诸单一的二分法（例如概念性与人际关系，真理条件式与语言性）。非真实条件，命题与非命题；括号与非括号）。此外，它表明了如何在FDG的框架内处理关于（间）主观性的文献中重要的概念和区别，例如语义和实用主观性之间以及主观性和主观性之间的区别。概念性与人际关系；真条件与非真条件，命题与非命题；圆括号与非圆括号）。此外，它表明了如何在FDG的框架内处理关于（间）主观性的文献中重要的概念和区别，例如语义和实用主观性之间以及主观性和主观性之间的区别。概念性与人际关系；真条件与非真条件，命题与非命题；圆括号与非圆括号）。此外，它表明了如何在FDG的框架内处理关于（间）主观性的文献中重要的概念和区别，例如语义和实用主观性之间以及主观性和主观性之间的区别。