Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persuasion or Alignment?

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Persuasion is a fact of social life, one upon which positive and negative views can be taken. Argumentative rhetoric is often functionally defined as aiming to persuade. Different views on persuasion are taken in argumentative studies, and many other disciplines focus on persuasion. This article takes an “inter-discursive” view of argumentation, and, following the “Hamblin’s trend”, suggests a possible replacement for the concept of persuasion by the inter-discursive concept of alignment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Translation (slightly modified) from http://frenchphilosophes.weebly.com/la-bruyegravere.html.

  2. “Il y a des êtres avec lesquels tout contact peut sembler superflu ou peu désirable. Il y a des êtres auxquels on ne se soucie pas d’adresser la parole; il y en a aussi avec qui on ne veut pas discuter, mais auxquels on se contente de donner des ordres” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1976: 59).

  3. «Une argumentation efficace est celle qui réussit à accroître cette intensité d’adhésion de façon à déclencher chez les auditeurs l’action envisagée (action positive ou abstention), ou du moins à créer, chez eux, une disposition à l’action, qui se manifeste au moment opportun» (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1976: 59); “seule l’argumentation, […] permet de comprendre nos décisions. […] elle se propose de provoquer une action” (id.: 62).

  4. http://thesaurus.com/browse/persuade.

  5. As translated by J. Hillis Miller (1993). Nietzsche in Basel: Writing, Reading. Jac 13, 2. http://www.jacweb.org/Archived_volumes/Text_articles/V13_I2_Miller.htm.

  6. A. Ortega, La razón razonable. El País, 25 septiembre 2006.

References

  • Anscombre, J.-C., and O. Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anscombre, J.-C., and O. Ducrot. 1986. Informativité et argumentativité. In De la métaphysique à la rhétorique, ed. M. Meyer, 79–94. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. 2005. Poetics and Rhetoric. Introd. and notes by E. Garver. Rhetoric trans. by W. Rhys Roberts, 1924; Poetics, trans. by S. H. Butcher, 1911. New York: Barnes and Nobles.

  • Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.

  • Bühler, K. 1976. Die Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften. Einleitung und Kommentar von E. Ströker. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klosterman.

  • Burke, K. 1950. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley, etc.,: University of California Press.

  • Dieter, O.A.L. 1950. Stasis. Speech Monographs 17: 345–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, O. 1972. Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M.A. 1994. The positive versus the negative evaluation of arguments. In New essays in Informal Logic, ed. R.H. Johnson and J.A. Blair, 21–35. Windsor, ON: Informal Logic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman E. [1956]/1987. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.

  • Grize, J.-B. 1996. Logique et communication. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobson, R. 1987. Linguistics and poetics. In Language in literature—Roman Jakobson, ed. K. Pomorska and S. Rudy, 62–94. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, G.A. 1999. Classical rhetoric & its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times, 2nd edition rev. & enl Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1976. Traité de l’argumentation—La Nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Ed. de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato. 1864. Plato’s Gorgias. literally translated. With an introductory essay… by E. M. Cope. Cambridge, etc. 1864. [Google books].

  • Quintilian. 1805. Quintilian’s Institutes of Eloquence. Translated… by W. Guthrie, esq. Vol. 1. [Google Books].

  • Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication and fallacies—A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, G.R. 2000. La Retórica de Antifonte. México: UNAM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbit, V., and O. Corneille (eds.). 1994. La persuasion. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Language Sciences, CNRS, Lyon University, ICAR, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, 15 parvis René Descartes, BP 7000, 69342, Lyon Cedex 07, France

    Christian Plantin

Authors
  1. Christian Plantin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Plantin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Plantin, C. Persuasion or Alignment?. Argumentation 26, 83–97 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9243-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9243-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation