Abstract

Taking Hunston's (1994) model of evaluation in written academic discourse as a point of departure, this paper explores the ways in which experts in Greek television studio discussion programs evaluate the ‘status’ of their statements on-line in terms of the truth and reliability ascribed to them. Analytically, the evaluation of status is examined by studying the type of statements (factual vs. nonfactual) and modal elements (absent, high, low) used in expert turns. Through both qualitative analysis and quantitative findings, it is shown that experts modulate the factuality and modality design of their talk so as to attend to an important aspect of the mediated context at hand: the institutional goals of communication aimed at by different programs. More specifically, in the adversarial context of debates, experts recurrently draw on factual statements, specific types of nonfactual statements, and high modality, thus constructing credible versions of reality and shaping their identity as authoritative and knowledgeable public speakers. By contrast, in informational discussions, experts use nonfactual statements and low modal elements much more often and, in this way, orient to the supportive environment of talk and the preference for consensus.