Ad hominem argument, address forms and political protest
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21747/21833958/red8a5Keywords:
Impoliteness, Ad Hominem Argumentation, Address Forms, Political Street Protests, Social NetworksAbstract
Linguistic impoliteness is a discursive phenomenon that must be analyzed in the context and discursive genre in which it occurs. It follows from the inadequacy of the speech act, taking into account sociodiscursive norms. However, it is part of the political protest and it is socially accepted in this context. The aim is to analyze the discursive construction of impoliteness in public space in Portugal, taking into account political street protests and social networks, to relate impoliteness and discursive genres parameters and to identify ad hominem arguments based on address forms. The corpus consists of impolite statements in Portuguese public space, in posters and slogans in street protests and in social networks.
Downloads
References
Amossy, R. (2009). Argumentation in Discourse: A Socio-discursive approach to arguments. OSSA Conference Archive. 1. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA8/keynotes/1 (acesso: 15 julho 2019).
Amossy, R. (2000). L’Argumentation dans le discours. Paris: A. Colin.
Amossy, R. (1999). The argument ad hominem in an interactional perspective. Proceedings of the Forth International Conference on Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, pp. 14-18.
Ayala, S. (2001). FTAs and Erskine May: conflicting needs? - Politeness in Question Time. Journal of Pragmatics 33, 143-169.
Bousfield, D. (2008). Impoliteness in Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bousfield, D. & Locher, M. (eds) (2008). Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Briz Gomes, A. (2004). Cortesía verbal codificada y cortesía verbal interpretada. In Bravo, D. & Briz Gomes A. (eds), Pragmática sociocultural: estudios sobre el discurso de cortesia en espanol. Barcelona: Ariel.
Brown, P. &. Levinson, S. C (1978/1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: University Press.
Carvalheiro, Prior & Morais (2013). Público, privado e representação online: o caso do Facebook. In Fidalgo, A., & Canavilhas, J. (eds.). Comunicação Digital - 10 anos de Investigação, pp. 101-119. Coimbra: Minerva.
Culpeper, J. (2011) Using language to cause offence. London: CUP.
Culpeper, J. (2009). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Full research report ESRC End of Award Report, RES-063-27-0015. Swindon: ESRC.
Culpeper, J. (2005). Impoliteness and entertainementin television quiz show: the weakest link. Journal of Politeness Research 1, pp. 35-72.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics 25, pp. 349-367.
Djian, P. (2008). Des visées de l’injure. In Desmons, É. & Paveau, M.-A. (eds), Outrages, insultes, blasphèmes et injures: violences du langage et polices du discours. (pp. 177-188). Paris: L’Harmattan.
Ernotte, P. & Rosier, L. (2001). Le lexique clandestin. Louvain-La-Neuve: Duculot.
Fracchiolla, B. & Moise, C. (2009). «Construction de la violence verbale et circulation des discours autour du Contrat Première Embauche ». In Lopez-Munoz, J.-M., Marnette, S., Rosier, L., Vincent, D. (eds). La circulation des discours, pp. 103-126. Canada: Nota Bene.
Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2012). Subjetividad, argumentación y (des)cortesía. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 49, pp. 49-92. http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo/no49/fabregas.pdf (acesso: 15 julho 2019)
Harris, S. (2000). Politically Impolite: Extending politeness theory to adversarial political discour-se. Discourse and society 12 (4), pp. 451-472.
Ilie, C. (2001). Unparliamentary Language: insults as congnitive formas of ideological confronta-tion. In R. Dirven, F. Roslyn & C. Ilie (Orgs). Language and Ideology, vol.II, pp. 238-261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2012). L’impolitesse en interaction: Aperçus théoriques et étude de cas. Lexis special 2. Lyon: ICAR.
Locher, M. & Bousfield, D. (2008). Introduction: Impoliteness and power in language. In Bousfield, D. & Locher, M. (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp. 1-13. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, M. & Watts, R. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms and linguistic behaviour. In Bousfield, D. & Locher, M. (eds.), Impoliteness in Language. Studies on its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, pp.77-99. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Marlangeon, S. (2014). Delimitación de unidades extralinguisticas de análisis del discurso de (des) cortesia. Signo y Sena 26, pp. 7-22.
Marques, M. A. (2015). Todos os rios vão dar a Março. O movimento dos indignados e a construção de um ethos coletivo. I Congresso Internacional de Estudos do Discurso (I CIED), Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas, Universidade de S. Paulo, Brasil.
Orkibi, E. (2012). L’insulte comme argument et outil de cadrage dans le mouvement «anti-Sarko». Argumentation et analyse du discours 8. http://aad.revues.org/1335 (acesso: 7 junho 2014)
Perelman, Ch & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1970/1958). Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Presses de L’université Libre de Bruxelles.
Plantin, Ch. (2005). L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Plantin, Ch. (1996). Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas, Langue Française, 112, pp. 9-30
Van Eemeren, F. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Redis: Revista de Estudos do discurso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors give to REDIS. Revista de Estudos do Discurso the exclusive right to publish its texts, in any medium, including their reproduction and sale in paper or digital format, as well as their availability in a free access regime in databases.
