Act and Person in Argument

Perelman, Chaïm; Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie

doi:10.1086/290789

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These conceptual topics (i.e. topoi ), associated with the concepts of act and person, play a central role in the rhetorical theory of argumentation (Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988; Leff, 1983: 24–25; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1951, 2000/ 1969: 293–321). The evaluation of acts and the person doing these acts can be seen as a pair of claim and reason forming an enthymeme, that is, a rhetorical figure in which any idea is connected with reasons for believing it through the rhetorical practices of a community (see Walker, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral argumentation as a rhetorical practice in popular online discourse: Examples from online comment sections of celebrity gossip

Eronen

2013

Discourse & Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyses how online participants of celebrity gossip position themselves in relation to their audience through forms of moral argumentation and thereby contribute to social hierarchies. In this study, forms of moral argumentation are seen as enthymemes, that is, claim-reason units based on moral norms as premises. The material consists of a total of 900 asynchronous online comments in English and 900 in Finnish. In addition to rhetorical argumentation analysis, the study investigates the dependency of moral argumentation on three contextual variables: gendered violence as the topic of discussion (domestic violence/female celebrities’ fights), as the shared culture of participants (Finnish-speaking, ‘national’/English-speaking, ‘multicultural’ participants) and a media institution as the moderator of online discourse (media-generated/user-generated websites). Four forms of moral argumentation were found in the material: 1) theoretical (deductive), 2) practical (contextual), 3) categorical (stereotype-based) and 4) digital (‘crowding’) enthymeme. Theoretical, practical and categorical enthymemes are rhetorical in a traditional sense because they include the hierarchical idea of moral norms as the shared, more or less authoritarian, basis of a community. Digital enthymemes, conversely, are texts without clear borders or any notion of moral norms. Such arguments characterized especially user-generated, English-language discussions concerning female celebrities’ fights. This indicates that the digital enthymeme is particularly prevalent where there is a lack of obvious hierarchies in the context of argumentation. As this study argues, however, the seemingly non-hierarchical and individualistic participation through digital enthymemes is a mere illusion, for these enthymemes are based on crowd behaviour supportive of sexist and class-bound domination.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral argumentation as a rhetorical practice in popular online discourse: Examples from online comment sections of celebrity gossip

Eronen

2013

Discourse & Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the good; for everything aims at the good. (Aristotle Topics, These types of evaluative premises are culture-dependent reasons for classifying something as desirable or not (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1951), and-just like other types of classifications-can be grounded on the definitions of evaluative predicates (what is good, desirable, dangerous, etc. see Vendler 1963;von Wright 1963) or stereotypes, and thus be more or less defeasible.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotive Meaning in Political Argumentation

Macagno

Walton

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Donald Trump’s speeches and messages are characterized by terms that are commonly referred to as “thick” or “emotive,” meaning that they are characterized by a tendency to be used to generate emotive reactions. This paper investigates how emotive meaning is related to emotions, and how it is generated or manipulated. Emotive meaning is analyzed as an evaluative conclusion that results from inferences triggered by the use of a term, which can be represented and assessed using argumentation schemes. The evaluative inferences are regarded as part of the connotation of emotive words, which can be modified and stabilized by means of recontextualizations. The manipulative risks underlying the misuse and the redefinition of emotive words are accounted for in terms of presuppositions and implicit modifications of the interlocutors’ commitments.

show abstract

“…The second step leads from a classification of a state of affairs to a value judgment (where values are considered as culture-dependent reasons for classifying something as desirable or not: see Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1363b 1-5; Topics, 115b 19 -27; Capone 2010; Hare, 1963, p. 24;Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1951). For instance, if a man willingly ruins his own country, he will be classified as "evil" or "contemptible," while someone who fights to improve it will be classified as "honorable."…”

Section: The Argumentative Structure Of Value Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Manipulating Emotions: Value-Based Reasoning and Emotive Language

Macagno

2014

Argumentation and Advocacy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper is to provide instruments for analyzing the structure of the reasoning underlying the inferences that they trigger, in order to investigate their reasonableness conditions and their persuasive effect. The analysis of the mechanism of persuasion triggered by such words involves the complex systematic relationship between values, decisions, and emotions, and the reasoning mechanisms that have been investigated under the label of "heuristics." On the one hand, arguing using ethical words is shown to sometimes involve value-based practical reasoning grounded on evaluative classifications stemming from hierarchies of values and maxims of experience. On the other hand, ethical words provide representations bound to the interlocutor's experiences and judgments, which trigger specific emotions yielding a particular reaction. This chain of judgments and reactions and the potential fallaciousness thereof can be inquired into by examining the relationship between the heuristic processes of reasoning and the more complex argumentative structure that the use of such words involves. The analysis of the 2013 Italian political campaign and the ad hominem arguments used by the political candidates shows the different strategies and counterstrategies for the manipulation of emotions.

show abstract

Act and Person in Argument

Cited by 26 publications

References 0 publications

Moral argumentation as a rhetorical practice in popular online discourse: Examples from online comment sections of celebrity gossip

Moral argumentation as a rhetorical practice in popular online discourse: Examples from online comment sections of celebrity gossip

Emotive Meaning in Political Argumentation

Manipulating Emotions: Value-Based Reasoning and Emotive Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About