Speech Act Pluralism in Argumentative Polylogues

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2021-09-09 DOI:10.22329/il.v41i3.6855

M. Lewiński

引用次数: 7

Abstract

I challenge two key assumptions of speech act theory, as applied to argumentation: illocutionary monism, grounded in the idea each utterance has only one (primary) illocutionary force, and the dyadic reduction, which models interaction as a dyadic affair between only two agents (speaker-hearer, proponentopponent). I show how major contributions to speech act inspired study of argumentation adhere to these assumptions even as illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues is a significant empirical fact in need of theoretical attention. I demonstrate this with two examples where arguers interacting with multiple persons convey plural, argumentatively relevant illocutionary forces. Understanding illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues also affords a better account of fallacious and manipulative discourse.

查看原文本刊更多论文

议论文段中的言语行为多元主义

我挑战了言语行为理论的两个关键假设，这两个假设适用于论证：言外一元论，基于每个话语只有一种（主要）言外力量的观点，以及二元还原，它将互动建模为只有两个主体（说话人-听话人，说话人-对手）之间的二元事务。我展示了受言语行为启发的议论文研究的主要贡献是如何坚持这些假设的，尽管议论文中的言外多元主义是一个需要理论关注的重要经验事实。我用两个例子来证明这一点，在这两个例子中，论证者与多个人互动传达了复数的、与论证相关的言外力量。理解议论文中的言外多元主义也可以更好地解释谬误和操纵性话语。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Informal Logic PHILOSOPHY-

CiteScore

1.50

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Informal Logic publishes articles that advance the dialectic in reasoning and argumentation theory and practice. Primary criteria for the acceptance of articles with a theoretical focus or interest are: (1) the article advances the dialectic or constitutes an interesting comment on it: it presents a cogent argument, objection, interpretation or position that is an advance in relation to the background of issues and controversies on the topic; or it casts the issue addressed in a new and worthwhile light; and (2) the article makes explicit reference to the pertinent literature on its topic, and it discharges the burden of proof imposed by that scholarship. Primary criteria for acceptance of articles devoted to the teaching of informal logic, critical thinking or argumentation include: originality; utility; timeliness; and evidence of the effectiveness of the methods, materials, technologies, etc., proposed. The standard criteria for scholarly publication—topical fit with the subjects covered in the journal; adequacy of coverage to the issue addressed; clarity, organization and literateness of the prose; conceptual clarity and cogency of argumentation—apply ceteris paribus to the selection of all articles, notes and reviews.