Cover not available

In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 57–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 3
Argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content

Two examples in same-sex marriage discourse

Published online: 2 November 2017
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.04ber
Abstract
Following a conception of the rhetorical dimension of communication as a matter of its ability to induce beliefs and attitudes, this paper proposes an analysis of the rhetorical content of a piece of communication in terms of the perlocutionary effects that it can be expected to produce in its addressees. Following this view, a distinction is drawn between argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content, which is illustrated by considering some pieces of discourse about same-sex marriage. I argue that whether or not we deal with argumentation proper, we can find both types of rhetorical content in any type of communication.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Rhetorical content as perlocutionary content
  • 3.The speech-act of arguing
  • 4.Argumentative and non-argumetative rhetorical content
  • 5.Examples
  • 6.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (25)
References
Attardo, S. (1997). Locutionary and Perlocutionary Cooperation: The perlocutionary Cooperative Principle.” Journal of Pragmatics. 27: 753–779. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bach, K., & Robert H. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bermejo-Luque, L. (2010). Intrinsic vs. instrumental value: the rhetorical dimension of argumentation. In Argumentation, 24 (4): 453–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Giving Reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to Argumentation Theory. Springer: DordrechtGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, E. (1965[1978]). Rhetorical Criticism. A Study in Method. Madison, Wisconsin: The Wisconsin University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Black, M. (1969). Austin on Performatives. In K. T. Fann (Eds.), Symposium on J. L. Austin (pp. 401–411). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burke, K. (1950 [1969]). A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, G. (1885). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Campbell, P. (1973). A rhetorical view of locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59 (3), 284–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions and Perlocutions. Foundations of Language. 9, 492–503.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, S. (1980). Perlocution. In J. Searle, F. Kiefer, & M. Bierwisch, (Eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics (pp. 37–55). Dordrecht: Reidel. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Cinnaminson, USA: Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamin. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gaines, R. N. (1979). Doing by Saying: toward a Theory of Perlocution. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 207–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, Y. (1993). The Impasse of Perlocution. Journal of Pragmatics, 20, 405–432. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinojosa, P. (2004). Matrimonio y católicos. Psicofonías. 18/10/2004] [URL] (original version in Spanish).
Kinneavy, J. L. (1971 [1980]). A Theory of Discourse. New York, London: Norton & Company.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurzon, D. (1998). The Speech Act Status of Incitement: Perlocutionary Acts Revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 29, 571–596. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, F. (2008). The Nature of Perlocution. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 3.1, 25 (2), 29–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson S. A. (1987). Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation. Information Sciences Institute: Marina del Rey.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcu, D. (2000). The Achilles’ heel of speech act theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 32: 1719–1741. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinto, R. (2011). Argument, Inference and Dialectic: Collected Papers in Informal Logic. Springer: Dordrecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1936 [1965]). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Act: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue