{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01995798319327731, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.269736842105263, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Discourse disputes: How come you do do like you do

An investigation of unusual occurrences of do-support in discourses about issues of race on a university campus illustrates a proposed method which allows a principled way of bringing together content and structure in discourse studies. Employing general rhetorical structures as a heuristic device and searching out unusual or 'marked' uses of particular linguistic features in relation to particular topics provides for such a principled way of correlating content and form. In this case, the use of argument analysis permits the hypothesis that a particular use of do-support may accompany non-local 'dispute' structures in discussions of controversial topics in which participants wish to avoid directly attributing positions to interlocutors. This use of do-support, which we call 'discoursal do', is similar to but distinct from the emphatic positive use which is used to signal 'local' dispute