When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate

Détails

Ressource 1Télécharger: Herman-Liberatore2022_Article_WhenEvaluativeAdjectivesPreven.pdf (860.76 [Ko])
Etat: Public
Version: Final published version
Licence: Tous droits réservés
ID Serval
serval:BIB_831A2EBC68DA
Type
Article: article d'un périodique ou d'un magazine.
Collection
Publications
Institution
Titre
When Evaluative Adjectives Prevent Contradiction in a Debate
Périodique
Argumentation
Auteur⸱e⸱s
Herman Thierry, Liberatore Diane
ISSN
0920-427X (print)
1572-8374 (electronic)
Statut éditorial
Publié
Date de publication
19/11/2021
Peer-reviewed
Oui
Numéro
36
Pages
155-176
Langue
anglais
Résumé
This paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words (VBWs), and one of the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs (with a focus on evaluative adjectives). Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” (as reported by Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, 1997) in argument (as reported by Rigotti & Rocci, Argumentation in practice, 2005), but is rather based on a German approach developed by (as reported by Dieckmann, Sprache in der Politik: Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen, 1975), (as reported by Strauss and Zifonun, Der politische Wortschatz, 1986), and (as reported by Girnth, Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik: Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyse öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation, 2015) about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative (Tseronis, 2014) or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote (in our example, pleading for more affordable housing rents), the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts.
Mots-clé
Linguistics and Language, Philosophy, Argumentation, Miranda words, Cultuiral Keywords
Web of science
Open Access
Oui
Création de la notice
15/02/2022 17:42
Dernière modification de la notice
04/08/2022 6:38
Données d'usage