This article deals with the discussion of abortion in a number of US presidential and vice-presidential debates, from a scaling perspective. The interest in scales, as (co)constructed and negotiated by participants in the course of interaction, is a component of occasioned semantics. I found that, in the political debates that I examined, there are a number of different scales anchored by the contrast between ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ positions. These are as follows: (1) Stage of pregnancy, (2) Prescribed action, (3) Special circumstances, (4) Locus of enforcement and (5) Frequency. These scales are manipulated in various ways by the candidates to make their own stances seem reasonable and moral and their opponents’ unreasonable and immoral. A position may be made to appear more moderate by adding a more extreme alternative to the scale, which is then rejected (‘negative upgrading’). Also, common goals (in particular, reduction of abortion frequency) may be emphasized. The debaters also use ‘negative downgrading’ – rejection of a more moderate position – to suggest an opponent’s unreasonableness. It is noted that the availability of several scales affords various ways of formulating the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a particular position. The article continues with a close examination of an extended debate sequence, illustrating the crucial role of implicature in the manipulation of scales, the attribution of attitude, and the practice of argumentation, and the possibility of dealing with implicature within a conversation analytic framework. The discussion is, at all points, grounded in and illustrated by the actual talk of the political candidates. It is suggested that viewing specific occasions of interaction in terms of the creation and negotiation of scales can yield a unique and revealing perspective on what is taking place.

中文翻译：

---

美国政治辩论中的堕胎讨论：偶然语义学研究

本文从尺度的角度讨论了美国总统和副总统的一些辩论中对堕胎的讨论。参与者在交互过程中（共同）构建和协商的对尺度的兴趣是偶然语义的一个组成部分。我发现，在我研究的政治辩论中，有许多不同的尺度由“支持生命”和“支持选择”的立场之间的对比所锚定。它们如下：(1) 怀孕阶段，(2) 规定的行动，(3) 特殊情况，(4) 执行地点和(5) 频率。这些量表被候选人以各种方式操纵，使自己的立场看起来合理和道德，而对手的不合理和不道德。通过在量表上添加一个更极端的选择，可以使一个位置看起来更温和，然后被拒绝（“负面升级”）。此外，可以强调共同目标（特别是减少流产频率）。辩论者还使用“负面降级”——拒绝更温和的立场——来暗示对手的不合理。需要注意的是，多个量表的可用性提供了各种方式来制定特定职位的合理性或不合理性。文章继续对扩展的辩论序列进行仔细检查，说明含义在操作量表、态度归因和论证实践中的关键作用，以及在对话分析框架内处理含义的可能性。讨论在所有方面都以政治候选人的实际谈话为基础，并以他们的实际谈话为基础。