Advocacy and Enactment: Exercitives and Acts of Arguing

Cristina Corredor

doi:10.2478/rela-2019-0003

Authors

Cristina Corredor University of Valladolid, Spain

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0003

Keywords:

advocacy, enactment, exercitive speech acts, acts of arguing, Austin

Abstract

Goodwin and Innocenti (2016) have contended that giving reasons may be a form of enactment, where a claim is supported by the very activity of making the claim. In my view, the kind of interaction that these authors are considering should be analysed as a form of advocacy, and therefore as an exercitive speech act. In this paper I will suggest that acts of advocating, qua illocutions, institute a normative framework where the speaker’s obligation to justify cannot be redeemed by a mere “making reasons apparent”. In general, giving reasons is part of the procedure in virtue of which the advocate’s authority to exert influence is recognised by their addressees. This illocutionary effect should be distinguished from other perlocutionary consequences.

References

Austin, John L. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. 2011. Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.
Google Scholar

Budzyńska, Katarzyna and Maciej Witek. 2014. Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum. Argumentation 28(3). 301-3015.
Google Scholar

Campbell, Karlyn K. and Kathleen H. Jamieson. 1978. ‘Form and Genre in Rhetorical Criticism: An Introduction.’ In Karlyn K. Campbell and Kathleen. H. Jamieson (eds.), Form and Genre: Shaping Rhetorical Action, 9-32. Falls Church: Speech Communication Association.
Google Scholar

Corredor, Cristina. 2001. A Comment on Threats and Communicative Rationality. Theoria: An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 16(1). 147-166.
Google Scholar

Eemeren, Frans van and Robert Grootendorst. 1982. The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized Discussions. The Journal of Pragmatics 6(1). 1-24.
Google Scholar

Eemeren, Frans van and Robert Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragmadialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Goodwin, Jean. 2013. Norms of Advocacy. OSSA Conference Archive 61. [Online] Available at: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA10/papersandcommentaries/61 [Accessed on: 7 March 2019]
Google Scholar

Goodwin, Jean. 2014. Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate about Advocating. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36(49). 79-98.
Google Scholar

Goodwin, Jean and Beth Innocenti. 2016. ‘The Pragmatic Force of Making Reasons Apparent.’ In Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński (eds.), Argumentation and Reasoned Action: Proceedings of the 1st European conference on argumentation, Lisbon, 2015, Vol. II, 449-462. London: College Publications.
Google Scholar

Kissine, Mikhail. 2013. From Utterances to Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Lewinski, Marcin. 2017. Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy. Informal Logic 37(2). 85-113.
Google Scholar

Maitra, Ishani and Mari Kate McGowan (eds.) 2012. Speech and Harm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Matusuda, Mari, Lawrence III, Charles R., Delgado, Richard and Kimberle Williams Crenshaw (eds.) 1993. Words that Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Google Scholar

O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2007. Potential Conflicts Between Normatively-responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research. Argumentation 21. 151-163.
Google Scholar

Sbisà, Marina. 2006. ‘Communicating Citizenship in Verbal Interaction: Principles of a Speech Act Oriented Discourse Analysis.’ In Heiko Hausendorf and Alfons Bora (eds.), Analysing Citizenship Talk, 151-180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Google Scholar

Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and Conventionality in Illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5.1 / Special Issue on Speech Actions. 33-52.
Google Scholar

Searle, John R. 1975. ‘A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts.’ In Keith Gunderson (ed.), Language, mind and knowledge, 344-369. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Google Scholar

Searle, John R. and Daniel Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

The Elizabeth Cady Stanton & Susan B. Anthony Papers Project. [Online] Available at: http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/ecswoman1.html [Accessed on: 7 March 2019]
Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Witek, Maciej. 2015. An Interactional Account of Illocutionary Practice. Language Sciences 47, 43-55.
Google Scholar