Positive discourse analysis and latent euphemisation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2021.416Abstract
The article examines some epistemic aspects of latent euphemisation in argumentative discourse. The purpose of the work is to show that, by focusing on the notion of voice which links talk and context, positive discourse analysis (PDA) can serve as a meta-orientation in analysing alternative discourses. The theoretical framework for the analysis is the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, which discusses methods and tools for improving discussion and reconciling dissensual opinions. According to M.Gerber, some of the potential problems of the pragma-dialectical approach are “ethical deficiencies”, “the risk of amorality” and limitations regarding the method for evaluating arguments in accordance with goals, purposes and consequences. This article argues that the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation can be implemented to identify latent euphemisation as fallacious reasoning. However, the evaluation of language use as latently euphemistic, and consequently, fallacious, is an epistemic judgment that needs to take into account discussants’ epistemic and epistemological boundaries and commitments, including ethical considerations. As communication can lead to miscommunication unless a common epistemological background is shared, latent euphemisation can be seen as a result of inconsistent epistemological positions whose potential motives and consequences need to be addressed.
Keywords:
positive discourse analysis (PDA), pragma-dialectical approach, latent euphemisation, ambiguity, unclearness
Downloads
References
Audi 1999 — The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Audi R (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 1001 p.
Abrantes 2005 — Abrantes A. M. Euphemism and co-operation in Discourse. In: Power without Domination: Dialogism and the Empowering Property of Communication. Series: Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society, and Culture. Vol. 12. Grillo E. (ed.) Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2005. P. 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.12.05abr.
Bakhtin 1981 — Bakhtin M. M. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Holquist M. (ed.), Emerson C. (transl.). Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981. 444 p.
Bart 2015 — Barth R. Elementi semiologije [Eléments de sémiologie]. Prev. sa franc. I. Čolović. Beograd: Čigoja štampa Publ., 2015. 142 p. (In Serbian)
Bartlett 2012 — Bartlett T. Hybrid voices and collaborative change: contextualizing positive discourse analysis. New York and London: Routledge, 2015. 274 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203109373
Bartlett 2018 — Bartlett T. Positive discourse analysis. In: Flowerdew J., Richardson J. E. (eds) The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies. Series: Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics. London; New York: Routledge, 2018. P. 133–147. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315739342
Blommaert 2005 — Blommaert J. Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 314 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610295
Breeze 2011 — Breeze R. Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics. 2011, 21 (4) 493–525. https:// doi.org/10.1075/prag.21.4.01bre
Brown, Yule 1983 — Brown G., and Yule G. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. 300 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226
Chilton 2011 — Chilton P. Manipulation. In: Zienkowski J., Östman J.-O., Verschueren J. (eds) Discursive pragmatics. Series: Handbook of pragmatics highlights. Book 8. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011. P. 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8
Fumerton 2006 — Fumerton R. Epistemology. Series: First books in philosophy. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 145 p.
Gerber 2011 — Gerber M. Pragmatism, pragma-dialectics, and methodology: Toward a more ethical notion of argument criticism. Speaker and gavel. 2011, 48 (1): 21–30. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel/vol48/iss1/4/ (accessed: 10.02.2019).
Grice 1975 — Grice H. P. Logic and conversation. In: Studies in syntax and semantics III: Speech acts. Cole P., Morgan J. (eds). New York: Academic Press, 1975. P. 41–58. http://lefft.xyz/psycholingAU16/readings/ grice1975-logic-and-conversation.pdf (accessed: 25.02.2019).
Jones 2007 — Jones P. E. 2007. Why there is no such thing as “critical discourse analysis”. Language and Communication. 2007, (27): 337–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2006.08.001
Kutrovátz 2012 — Kutrovátz G. Expert authority and ad verecundiam arguments. In: Exploring Argumentative Contexts. Series: Argumentation in Context (Book 4). van Eemeren F. H., Garssen B. (eds). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012. P. 195–212. https://doi. org/10.1075/aic.4.12kut
Luke 2002 — Luke A. Beyond science and ideology critique: Developments in critical discourse analysis. Annual review of applied linguistics. 2002, 22: 96–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190502000053.
Lumer 1990 — Lumer C. Praktische Argumentationstheorie. Theoretische Grundlagen, praktische Begründung und regeln wichtiger Argumentionsarten. Series: Wissenshaftstheorie, Wissenschaft und Philoso- phie, 26. Braunscheweig: Vieweg, 1990. 474 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-19710-2
Lumer 2005 — Lumer C. Introduction. The epistemological approach to argumentation — a map. Informal logic. 2005, 25 (3), 189–212. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v25i3.1134
Martin 2004 — Martin J. R. Positive discourse analysis: solidarity and change. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses. 2004, (49): 179–202. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1411219 (accessed: 30.01.2019).
Niño, Marrero 2015 — Niño D., Marrero D. The Agentive approach to argumentation: A proposal. In: Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Series: Argumentation library. Vol. 28. Van Eemeren F. H., Garssen B. (eds). Cham: Springer, 2015. P. 53–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 21103-9_4
Searle 1969 — Searle J. R. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. 203 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Searle 1979 — Searle J. R. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979. 187 p. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500008496
van Dijk 1995 — van Dijk T. A. Aims of critical discourse analysis. Japanese discourse. 1995, (1): 17–27. http://discourses.org/OldArticles/Aims%20of%20Critical%20Discourse%20Analysis.pdf (accessed: 23.03.2018).
van Eemeren 2010 — van Eemeren F. H. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Series: Argumentation in сontext (Book 2). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010. 308 p. https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2
van Eemeren 2017 — van Eemeren F. H. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Prototypical argumentative patterns: exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Series: Argumentation in сontext. Book 11. In: van Eemeren F. H. (ed.)Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2017. P. 7–30. https://doi. org/10.1075/aic.11.02van
van Eemeren 2018 — van Eemeren F. H. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Series: Argumentation library, v. 33. Cham: Springer, 2018. 199 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6
van Eemeren et al. 2014 — van Eemeren F. H., Garssen B., Krabbe E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., Verheij B., Wagemans J. H. M. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. 988 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5
van Eemeren, Grootendorst 1992 — van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. New York: Routledge, 1992. 252 p. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315538662
van Eemeren, Grootendorst 2004 — van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. A Systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 216 p. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389
van Leeuwen 2005 — van Leeuwen T. Introducing social semiotics. London; New York: Routledge, 2005. 320 p. https://doi.org/10.1177/02673231070220030713
Verschueren 2001 — Verschueren J. Predicaments of criticism. Critique of anthropology. 2001, 21 (1): 59–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X0102100104
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Articles of "Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature" are open access distributed under the terms of the License Agreement with Saint Petersburg State University, which permits to the authors unrestricted distribution and self-archiving free of charge.
