Advertisement

A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting

  • Fred J. Kauffeld
  • Beth Innocenti
Article

Abstract

We submit a normative pragmatic theory of exhorting—an account of conceptually necessary and potentially efficacious components of a coherent strategy for securing a sympathetic hearing for efforts to urge and inspire addressees to act on high-minded principles. Based on a Gricean analysis of utterance-meaning, we argue that the concept of exhorting comprises making statements openly urging addressees to perform some high-minded, principled course of action; openly intending to inspire addressees to act on the principles; and intending that addressees’ recognition of the intentions to urge and inspire creates reasons for addressees to grant a sympathetic hearing to what the speaker has to say. We show that the theory accounts for the design of Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. By doing so we add to the inventory of reasons why social actors make arguments, continue a line of research showing the relationship of arguing to master speech acts, and show that making arguments can be an effective strategy for inspiring principled action.

Keywords

Exhorting Normative pragmatic theory Grice Speech act theory Lincoln’s Cooper Union address 

References

  1. Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asen, R. 2005. Pluralism, disagreement, and the status of argument in the public sphere. Informal Logic 25(2): 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Black, E. 1965. Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  4. Briggs, J.C. 2005. Lincoln’s speeches reconsidered. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Conley, T.M. 1984. The enthymeme in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2): 168–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, H., and J. Zeleny. 2011, January 13. Obama calls for a new era of civility in U.S. politics. New York Times. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.nytimes.com.
  7. Corry, J.A. 2003. Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made him president. Bloomington: Xlibris.Google Scholar
  8. Current, R.N. 2009. The master politician. In The best American history essays on Lincoln, ed. S. Wilentz, 129–148. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwall, S. 2013. Honor, history, and relationship: Essays in second-personal ethics II. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Egerton, D.R. 2010. Year of meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the election that brought on the Civil War. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  11. Frazer, M. 2010. The enlightenment of sympathy: Justice and the moral sentiments in the eighteenth century and today. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodwin, J. 2011. Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts. Argumentation 25(3): 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grice, H.P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66(3): 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grice, H.P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intention. Philosophical Review 78(2): 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hample, D., and A.L. Irions. 2015. Arguing to display identity. Argumentation 29(4): 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hoefler, J. 2016, August 10. Do menacing comments about Hillary Clinton cross the First Amendment line? Washington Post. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.washingtonpost.com.
  17. Holzer, H. 2004. Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made Abraham Lincoln president. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  18. Houtlosser, P. 1998. Points of view. Argumentation 12(3): 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ieţcu-Fairclough, I. 2009. Legitimation and strategic maneuvering in the political field. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies in strategic maneuvering, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 131–151. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Innocenti, B. 2011a. Countering questionable tactics by crying foul. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(3): 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Innocenti, B. 2011b. Arguing by apostrophizing. In Argumentation: Cognition and community, ed. F. Zenker. CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Innocenti, B. 2011c. Analyzing repetition in argumentation. In Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, and G. Mitchell, 868–874. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  23. Innocenti, B., and F.J. Kauffeld. 2013. Connecting commitments to actions by exhorting. Presented at the National Communication Association Annual Convention, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  24. Innocenti, B., and N. Kathol. 2018. The persuasive force of demanding. Philosophy and Rhetoric 51(1): 50–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Innocenti, B., and E. Miller. 2016. The persuasive force of political humor. Journal of Communication 66(3): 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacobs, S. 1983. When worlds collide: An application of field theory to rhetorical conflict. In Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation, ed. D. Zarefsky, M.O. Sillars, and J. Rhodes, 749–755. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobs, S. 1989. Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation 3(4): 345–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jacobs, S. 2006. Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s Daisy ad. Argumentation 14(3): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kauffeld, F.J. 1987. Rhetoric and practical necessity: A view for the study of speech acts. In Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation: Argument and critical practices, ed. J.W. Wenzel, 83–95. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  31. Kauffeld, F.J. 1995. On the difference between assumptions and presumptions. In Argumentation and values: Proceedings of the ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. S. Jackson, 509–514. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  32. Kauffeld, F.J. 1998. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12(2): 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kauffeld, F.J. 2001. Argumentation, discourse, and the rationality underlying Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning. In Cognition in language use, ed. T.E.T. Németh, 149–163. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar
  34. Kauffeld, F.J. 2003. The ordinary practice of presuming and presumption with special attention to veracity and the burden of proof. In Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 133–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kauffeld, F.J. 2009a. Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning and Cicero’s Catilinarian apostrophe. Argumentation 23(2): 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kauffeld, F.J. 2009b. What we are learning about the pragmatics of the arguers’ obligations? In Concerning argument, ed. S. Jacobs, 1–31. Washington DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  37. Kauffeld, F.J., and B. Innocenti. 2016. Inducing a sympathetic (empathic) reception for exhortation. In Argumentation, objectivity and bias: Proceedings of the 11 th international conference of the Ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 1821 May 2016, ed. P. Bondy and L. Benaquista, 1–15. Windsor, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/127.
  38. Kauffeld, F.J., and May, L. 2006. Exhorting and inciting. In Engaging argument: Selected papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation, ed. P. Riley, 318–325. Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  39. Krause, S.R. 2002. Liberalism and honor. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Leff, M. 2001. Lincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-classical criticism revisited. Western Journal of Communication 65(3): 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leff, M.C., and G.P. Mohrmann. 1974. Lincoln at Cooper Union: Rhetorical analysis of the text. Quarterly Journal of Speech 60(3): 346–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lincoln, A. 1860. Cooper Union address. Reprinted in: H. Holzer (2004) Lincoln at Cooper Union: The speech that made Abraham Lincoln president, 249-284. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  43. Marinelli, K. 2016. Revisiting Edwin Black: Exhortation as a prelude to emotional-material rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 46(5): 465–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moldovan, Andrei. 2016. Presumptions in communication. Studia Humana 5(3): 104–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Keefe, D.J. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, ed. J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard, 3–23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Pinto, R.C. 1991. Generalizing the notion of argumentation. In Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, ed. F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, vol. 1, 137–146. Amsterdam: SIC SAT.Google Scholar
  47. Pinto, R.C. 2007. Burdens of rejoinder. In Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson, ed. H.V. Hansen and R.C. Pinto, 75–88. Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  48. Shakespeare, W. 1993. Julius Caesar. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from http://shakespeare.mit.edu/julius_caesar/.
  49. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 2014. Speech act theory and the study of argumentation. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stampe, D.W. 1967. On the acoustic behavior of rational animals. Madison: University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  51. Stampe, D.W. 1975. Meaning and truth in the theory of speech acts. In speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 1–39. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. Strawson, P.F. 1964. Intention and convention in speech acts. Philosophical Review 73(4): 439–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Strawson, P.F. 1974. Freedom and resentment and other essays. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  54. Sweeny, J. 2017, April 29. Not covered under the first amendment: The ACLU is wrong about Trump and incitement to violence. Salon. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.salon.com.
  55. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14(3): 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  59. van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snock Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilentz, S. 2009, July 14. Who Lincoln was and was not: The images and illusions of this momentous bicentenntial year. The New Republic. Retrieved January 18, 2018 from www.newrepublic.com.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Communication Studies DepartmentEdgewood CollegeMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Communication Studies DepartmentUniversity of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations