Justifying a recommendation: tell a story or present an argument?

Paul van den Hoven

Abstrakt


Formułując zalecenie, retor określa swoje położenie na „polu” (ang. playground) wielu możliwości,
z których może skorzystać w ramach gatunku deliberatywnego. Koncepcję pola opisują następujące wymiary: przymus zalecenia i siła jego uzasadnienia, ale także forma przedstawienia – od prototypowej narracji po prototypową argumentację. W różnych kontekstach to pole wydaje się być wykorzystywane na różne sposoby i z różną intensywnością, co omówiono w niniejszym artykule. W zrozumieniu pomóc mogą koncepcje: zarządzania twarzą audytorium oraz różne koncepcje racjonalności, które dominują w określonych socjokulturowych kontekstach.

Pełny tekst:

PDF (English)

Bibliografia


Black J.B. and J.H. Bower. 1980. “Story understanding as problem-solving”. Poetics 9: 223-250.

Boyd, B. 2009. On the origin of stories. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Brown J.B. and R.R. Hurtig. 1983. “Children’s discourse competence: an evaluation of developmental inference process.” Discourse processes 6: 353-375.

Brown, P. and S.C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness. Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burleson, B.R. and E.L. MacGeorge. 2002. Supportive communication. In: M.L. Knapp and J.A. Daily (eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed.). London: Sage. 374-422.

Flöck, I. and R. Geluykens. 2015. “Speech acts in corpus pragmatics: a quantitative contrastive study of directives in spontaneous and elicited discourse”. In Yearbook of corpus linguistics and pragmatics 2015, ed. J. Romero-Trillo, 7-37. Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Gottschall, J. 2013. The storytelling animal. How stories make us human. New York: Marner.

Kafalenos, E. 2006. Narrative causalities. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.

Labov W. 1981. “Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative.” In Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Georgetown University Round Table, ed. D. Tannen, 217-247. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Mancuso, J.C. 1986. “The acquisition and use of narrative grammar structure.” In Narrative psychology: the storied nature of human conduct, ed. T.R. Sarbin, 91-111. New York: Praeger.

Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J.R. 1976. “A classification of illocutionary acts”. Language and Society 5 (1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837

Sugiyama, M.S. 2001. “Narrative theory and function: why evolution matters.” Philosophy and literature 25: 233-250.

Sutton-Smith, B. 1986. “Children’s fiction making.” In Narrative psychology: the storied nature of human conduct, ed. T.R. Sarbin, 67-90. New York: Praeger.

Van den Hoven, P.J. 2011. “The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.” Argumentation 25: 499–511.

Van den Hoven, P.J. 2015. Gold mining. The art of rhetorical discourse analysis. Xiamen: Xiamen University Press.

Van den Hoven, P.J. 2017. “Narratives and Pragmatic Arguments: Ivens’ The 400 Million.” In Narration as Argument. Argumentation Library, ed. P. Olmos, vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56883-6_7

Van Poppel, L. 2013. Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Walton, D., C. Reed and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Weger, H. 2013. “Engineering argumentation in marriage: Pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, and the 'fair fight for change' in marriage education”. Journal of Argumentation in Context, Vol. 2 Issue 3, 279-298.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.29107/rr2017.4.2

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


##submission.license.cc.by4.footer##