Page 72 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 72
What Do We Know about the World?
structure, the addressee adopts a highly creative role (Eco, 1983: 50 ff.).
When doing that, he or she even becomes the co-author of the argu-
mentation at stake (Maingueneau, 2002: 40; Walton, 2007: 186) which
considerably contributes to the process of persuasion. As co-author the
addressee is much more likely to fully identify with the indirectly sug-
gested conclusion.
Argumentation is usually seen as opposed to demonstration (Bonio-
lo and Vidali, 2011: 7; Maingueneau, 1991: 228). Demonstration, based
on true premises, is part of formal logic whereas argumentation, based
on probable and plausible premises, is the analogon in informal logic.
What is relevant in discourse analysis, text linguistics and mainly in lin-
guistic pragmatics is obviously argumentation rather than demonstra-
tion, where implicit premises, different kinds of implicatures, presuppo-
sitions and various kinds of inferential processes are at stake. The ques-
tion which now arises is the one concerning the relationship between ar-
gumentation as informal logic and rhetoric. Ducrot understands by ar-
gumentation rhétorique (Ducrot, 2004: 18) the verbal activity of making
somebody believe something. Making somebody believe something seems
to be the overall goal of rhetoric as well as of argumentation. Chaïm
Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, who have written history in ar-
gumentation theory with their Traité de l’argumentation, don’t distin-
guish between rhetoric and argumentation as the subtitle of their work
La Nouvelle Rhétorique (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1992) sug-
gests. Interestingly enough though, this was also Aristotle’s concept as
in his work the terms rhetoric and argumentation, to which he still re-
ferred as rhetoric and dialectics, were interchangeable as well (Amossy,
2006: 4; Meyer, 2008: 12).
At any rate, even if certain differences between argumentation and
rhetoric have occasionally been worked out, the concept of ethos has
turned out to be equally important both for argumentation and rheto-
ric. It has for example been argued that in argumentation the language is
at the centre of interest, whereas in rhetoric it is man himself. It has been
claimed that argumentation tackles questions, whereas rhetoric tries to
avoid them. Argumentation has been seen more closely related to rea-
son, whereas rhetoric has even been treated as a discourse figure (Mey-
er, 2008: 11 ff.; Breton and Gauthier, 2000: 38). However, to conclude
this short and panoramic overview we would like to recall Meyer’s met-
aphorical and quite expressive definition of rhetoric according to which
rhetoric is the negotiation of the distance between individuals concern-
structure, the addressee adopts a highly creative role (Eco, 1983: 50 ff.).
When doing that, he or she even becomes the co-author of the argu-
mentation at stake (Maingueneau, 2002: 40; Walton, 2007: 186) which
considerably contributes to the process of persuasion. As co-author the
addressee is much more likely to fully identify with the indirectly sug-
gested conclusion.
Argumentation is usually seen as opposed to demonstration (Bonio-
lo and Vidali, 2011: 7; Maingueneau, 1991: 228). Demonstration, based
on true premises, is part of formal logic whereas argumentation, based
on probable and plausible premises, is the analogon in informal logic.
What is relevant in discourse analysis, text linguistics and mainly in lin-
guistic pragmatics is obviously argumentation rather than demonstra-
tion, where implicit premises, different kinds of implicatures, presuppo-
sitions and various kinds of inferential processes are at stake. The ques-
tion which now arises is the one concerning the relationship between ar-
gumentation as informal logic and rhetoric. Ducrot understands by ar-
gumentation rhétorique (Ducrot, 2004: 18) the verbal activity of making
somebody believe something. Making somebody believe something seems
to be the overall goal of rhetoric as well as of argumentation. Chaïm
Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, who have written history in ar-
gumentation theory with their Traité de l’argumentation, don’t distin-
guish between rhetoric and argumentation as the subtitle of their work
La Nouvelle Rhétorique (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1992) sug-
gests. Interestingly enough though, this was also Aristotle’s concept as
in his work the terms rhetoric and argumentation, to which he still re-
ferred as rhetoric and dialectics, were interchangeable as well (Amossy,
2006: 4; Meyer, 2008: 12).
At any rate, even if certain differences between argumentation and
rhetoric have occasionally been worked out, the concept of ethos has
turned out to be equally important both for argumentation and rheto-
ric. It has for example been argued that in argumentation the language is
at the centre of interest, whereas in rhetoric it is man himself. It has been
claimed that argumentation tackles questions, whereas rhetoric tries to
avoid them. Argumentation has been seen more closely related to rea-
son, whereas rhetoric has even been treated as a discourse figure (Mey-
er, 2008: 11 ff.; Breton and Gauthier, 2000: 38). However, to conclude
this short and panoramic overview we would like to recall Meyer’s met-
aphorical and quite expressive definition of rhetoric according to which
rhetoric is the negotiation of the distance between individuals concern-
