The Passover Haggadah as Argument, Or Why Is This Text Different from Other Texts?
Argumentation 12 (1):57-77 (1998)
| Abstract | In this paper, I demonstrate how the Passover Haggadah exploits certain features of conversational interaction in both the production formats of its texts and in its performance formats (or ways it indicates it should be performed) during the Passover Seder. Some conversational methods used include the use of dispreferred second pair parts which creates an impression that at least part of the Haggadah's text resembles a kind of conversational argument. Furthermore, as a recitable text, the Haggadah exploits the use of and changes in footings in a manner reminiscent of how reported speech is used in ordinary conversation to introduce participant roles and virtual participants with their own commitments, orientations and positions which may not represent those of the animators of the recited text. While the Haggadah is not an actual argument in conventional terms, it is a script of ritual texts organized according to a logic similar to the one by which certain kinds of conversational arguments are organized. Participants are able to animate participatory roles and assess the positions, orientations and commitments such roles represent in a manner that rehearses how such positions, orientations and commitments might be accomplished in actual argumentation | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRob Anderson & Kenneth N. Cissna (1996). Criticism and Conversational Texts: Rhetorical Bases of Role, Audience, and Style in the Buber-Rogers Dialogue. Human Studies 19 (1):85 - 118.
Koji Yamashita, Hidekazu Kubota & Toyoaki Nishida (2005). Designing Conversational Agents: Effect of Conversational Form on Our Comprehension. AI and Society 20 (2):125-137.
Sol Azuelos-Atias (2010). Semantically Cued Contextual Implicatures in Legal Texts. Journal of Pragmatics 42 (3):728-743.
M. Azar (1999). Argumentative Text as Rhetorical Structure: An Application of Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 13 (1):97-114.
Mark Bevir (2002). What Is a Text? International Philosophical Quarterly 42 (4):493-508.
Marie-Francine Moens (2001). Innovative Techniques for Legal Text Retrieval. Artificial Intelligence and Law 9 (1).
Anneli Mihkelev (2012). The Image of Neighbours. Sign Systems Studies 40 (3-4):432-446.
Richard J. Baron (1990). Medical Hermeneutics: Where is the “Text” We Are Interpreting? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 11 (1).
Douglas Walton (1999). Historical Origins of Argumentum Ad Consequentiam. Argumentation 13 (3):251-264.
Roy Wagner (2008). Post-Structural Readings of a Logico-Mathematical Text. Perspectives on Science 16 (2):pp. 196-230.
Nancy Green (2010). Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory. Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
Denisa Butnaru (2008). The Literary Text and the System of Relevances. Studia Phaenomenologica 8:83-108.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2010-09-11Total downloads3 ( #202,107 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
