nach oben

Argumentation

Erschienen in:

10.08.2018

A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting

verfasst von: Fred J. Kauffeld, Beth Innocenti

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 4/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

We submit a normative pragmatic theory of exhorting—an account of conceptually necessary and potentially efficacious components of a coherent strategy for securing a sympathetic hearing for efforts to urge and inspire addressees to act on high-minded principles. Based on a Gricean analysis of utterance-meaning, we argue that the concept of exhorting comprises making statements openly urging addressees to perform some high-minded, principled course of action; openly intending to inspire addressees to act on the principles; and intending that addressees’ recognition of the intentions to urge and inspire creates reasons for addressees to grant a sympathetic hearing to what the speaker has to say. We show that the theory accounts for the design of Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. By doing so we add to the inventory of reasons why social actors make arguments, continue a line of research showing the relationship of arguing to master speech acts, and show that making arguments can be an effective strategy for inspiring principled action.

Nächster Artikel Precedential Ad Hominem in Polemical Exchange: Examples from the Israeli Political Debate

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

We use the phrase “making arguments” and related terms such as “argumentation” in the sense of O’Keefe’s (1982) “argument₁-making”.

Researchers who approach argumentation from a pragma-dialectical perspective have also described their theorizing as normative pragmatic and also make use of speech act theory in developing pragma-dialectical theory (e.g., van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, 2004; van Eemeren et al. 1993). Whereas pragma-dialectical theory is based on integrating Grice’s maxims with Searle’s conditions for the performance of speech acts (e.g., Andone 2013; Houtlosser 1998; Snoeck Henkemans 2014), normative pragmatic theory is based on Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning (1957, 1969) as amended and explained by Strawson (1964) and Stampe (1967). Normative pragmatic theory explains why a speaker can reasonably expect her utterance to secure her intended response from addressees without recourse to a notion of rules applied to a communicative interaction (Kauffeld 1987, 2009b; Strawson 1964). Instead, a normative pragmatic account explains or makes intelligible how social actors themselves design messages that regulate the activity (e.g., Jacobs 1989, 2000, 2006).

See Kauffeld (1987, 2001, 2009a, b) for more detail on Grice’s analysis.

We maintain that exhortations must urge and inspire principled action, a position compatible with the fact that news sources have described as exhortation some of U.S. President Donald Trump’s calls to deplorable action (Hoefler 2016; Sweeny 2017). We believe utterances such as a call to “get ‘em” (protestors) at one of his March 2016 presidential campaign rallies are more accurately described as “inciting violence” than “exhorting violence,” as indicated by both public outrage at Trump’s calls to violent action and questions about whether Trump “incited” violence. Nonetheless, even if one wants to describe calls to deplorable action as exhortation, we submit that such exhortations may not be practically efficacious because they are easy to dismiss with impunity as immoral, unethical, wrong, not the right thing to do, and so on (see also Cooper and Zeleny 2011). As arguments can be weak or poor, so can exhortations.

Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Asen, R. 2005. Pluralism, disagreement, and the status of argument in the public sphere. Informal Logic 25(2): 117–137.CrossRef

Black, E. 1965. Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Briggs, J.C. 2005. Lincoln’s speeches reconsidered. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Conley, T.M. 1984. The enthymeme in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2): 168–187.CrossRef

Cooper, H., and J. Zeleny. 2011, January 13. Obama calls for a new era of civility in U.S. politics. New York Times. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.nytimes.com.

Corry, J.A. 2003. Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made him president. Bloomington: Xlibris.

Current, R.N. 2009. The master politician. In The best American history essays on Lincoln, ed. S. Wilentz, 129–148. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Darwall, S. 2013. Honor, history, and relationship: Essays in second-personal ethics II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Egerton, D.R. 2010. Year of meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the election that brought on the Civil War. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

Frazer, M. 2010. The enlightenment of sympathy: Justice and the moral sentiments in the eighteenth century and today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Goodwin, J. 2011. Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts. Argumentation 25(3): 285–296.CrossRef

Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388.CrossRef

Grice, H.P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intention. Philosophical Review 78(2): 147–177.CrossRef

Hample, D., and A.L. Irions. 2015. Arguing to display identity. Argumentation 29(4): 389–416.CrossRef

Hoefler, J. 2016, August 10. Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line? Washington Post. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.washingtonpost.com.

Holzer, H. 2004. Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made Abraham Lincoln president. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Houtlosser, P. 1998. Points of view. Argumentation 12(3): 387–405.CrossRef

Ieţcu-Fairclough, I. 2009. Legitimation and strategic maneuvering in the political field. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies in strategic maneuvering, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 131–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Innocenti, B. 2011a. Countering questionable tactics by crying foul. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(3): 178–188.CrossRef

Innocenti, B. 2011b. Arguing by apostrophizing. In Argumentation: Cognition and community, ed. F. Zenker. CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

Innocenti, B. 2011c. Analyzing repetition in argumentation. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, 868–874. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Innocenti, B., and F.J. Kauffeld. 2013. Connecting commitments to actions by exhorting. Presented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention, Washington DC.

Innocenti, B., and N. Kathol. 2018. The persuasive force of demanding. Philosophy and Rhetoric 51(1): 50–72.CrossRef

Innocenti, B., and E. Miller. 2016. The persuasive force of political humor. Journal of Communication 66(3): 366–385.CrossRef

Jacobs, S. 1983. When worlds collide: An application of field theory to rhetorical conflict. In Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation, ed. D. Zarefsky, M.O. Sillars, and J. Rhodes, 749–755. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.

Jacobs, S. 1989. Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation 3(4): 345–365.CrossRef

Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286.CrossRef

Jacobs, S. 2006. Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy ad. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286.CrossRef

Kauffeld, F.J. 1987. Rhetoric and practical necessity: A view for the study of speech acts. In Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation: Argument and critical practices, ed. J.W. Wenzel, 83–95. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.

Kauffeld, F.J. 1995. On the difference between assumptions and presumptions. In Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. S. Jackson, 509–514. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.

Kauffeld, F.J. 1998. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12(2): 245–266.CrossRef

Kauffeld, F.J. 2001. Argumentation, discourse, and the rationality underlying Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning. In Cognition in language use, ed. T.E.T. Németh, 149–163. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

Kauffeld, F.J. 2003. The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 133–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRef

Kauffeld, F.J. 2009a. Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning and Cicero’s Catilinarian apostrophe. Argumentation 23(2): 239–257.CrossRef

Kauffeld, F.J. 2009b. What we are learning about the pragmatics of the arguers’ obligations? In Concerning argument, ed. S. Jacobs, 1–31. Washington DC: National Communication Association.

Kauffeld, F.J., and B. Innocenti. 2016. Inducing a sympathetic (empathic) reception for exhortation. In Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11 ^th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 18–21 May 2016, ed. P. Bondy and L. Benaquista, 1–15. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/127.

Kauffeld, F.J., and May, L. 2006. Exhorting and inciting. In Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation, ed. P. Riley, 318–325. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

Krause, S.R. 2002. Liberalism and honor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Leff, M. 2001. Lincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-classical criticism revisited. Western Journal of Communication 65(3): 232–248.CrossRef

Leff, M.C., and G.P. Mohrmann. 1974. Lincoln at Cooper Union: Rhetorical analysis of the text. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60(3): 346–358.CrossRef

Lincoln, A. 1860. Cooper Union address. Reprinted in: H. Holzer (2004) Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made Abraham Lincoln president, 249-284. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Marinelli, K. 2016. Revisiting Edwin Black: Exhortation as a prelude to emotional-material rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 46(5): 465–485.CrossRef

Moldovan, Andrei. 2016. Presumptions in communication. Studia Humana 5(3): 104–117.CrossRef

O’Keefe, D.J. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard, 3–23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

Pinto, R.C. 1991. Generalizing the notion of argumentation. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, vol. 1, 137–146. Amsterdam: SIC SAT.

Pinto, R.C. 2007. Burdens of rejoinder. In Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 75–88. Newport News: Vale Press.

Shakespeare, W. 1993. Julius Caesar. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/.

Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 2014. Speech act theory and the study of argumentation. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36: 41–58.CrossRef

Stampe, D.W. 1967. On the acoustic behavior of rational animals. Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Stampe, D.W. 1975. Meaning and truth in the theory of speech acts. In speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 1–39. New York: Academic Press.

Strawson, P.F. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review 73(4): 439–460.CrossRef

Strawson, P.F. 1974. Freedom and resentment and other essays. London: Methuen.

Sweeny, J. 2017, April 29. Not covered under the first amendment: The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence. Salon. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.salon.com.

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14(3): 293–305.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snock Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Wilentz, S. 2009, July 14. Who Lincoln was and was not: The images and illusions of this momentous bicentenntial year. The New Republic. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.newrepublic.com.

Titel: A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting
verfasst von: Fred J. Kauffeld
Beth Innocenti
Publikationsdatum: 10.08.2018
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Argumentation / Ausgabe 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9465-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2018

Peirce Knew Why Abduction Isn’t IBE—A Scheme and Critical Questions for Abductive Argument

Practical Reasoning Arguments: A Modular Approach

Argument by Multimodal Metaphor as Strategic Maneuvering in TV Commercials: A Case Study

David Hitchcock (2017): On Reasoning and Argument: Essays in Informal Logic and Critical Thinking

Frans H. van Eemeren: Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Andrea Rocci: Modality in Argumentation—A Semantic Investigation of the Role of Modalities in the Structure of Arguments with an Application to Italian Modal Expressions