A Pragmatic Account of Rephrase in Argumentation

IF 0.9 3区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY

Informal Logic Pub Date : 2022-03-16 DOI:10.22329/il.v42i1.7212

M. Koszowy, S. Oswald, Katarzyna Budzynska, Barbara Konat, P. Gygax

引用次数: 4

Abstract

In the spirit of the pragmatic account of quotation and reporting offered by Macagno and Walton (2017), we outline a systematic pragmatic account of rephrasing. For this purpose, we combine two interrelated methods of inquiry into the variety of uses of rephrase as a persuasive device: (i) the annotation of rephrase types to identify locutionary and illocutionary aspects of rephrase, (ii) the crowd–sourced examination of rephrase types to investigate their perlocutionary effects. As it draws on Waltonian insights and on empirical and experimental research on the (mis)use of rephrase, our approach allows us to ground a novel theoretically–informed and data–driven pragmatic account of rephrase.

查看原文本刊更多论文

论证中重述的语用阐释

本着Macagno和Walton（2017）提出的引用和报道的务实描述的精神，我们概述了一个系统的改写语用描述。为此，我们将两种相互关联的研究方法结合起来，研究改写语作为一种说服手段的各种用途：（i）对改写语类型的注释，以确定改写语的言后和言外方面；（ii）对改写词类型的众源审查，以调查其言后效果。由于我们的方法借鉴了沃尔顿的见解以及对改写语（错误）使用的实证和实验研究，使我们能够为改写语的新的理论-知情和数据-驱动的语用解释奠定基础。

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.