A Normative Pragmatic Model of Making Fear Appeals

Innocenti, Beth

doi:10.5325/philrhet.44.3.0273

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Normative pragmatic theories (e.g., Goodwin 2001Goodwin , 2007Goodwin , 2011Innocenti 2011;Innocenti and Miller 2016;Jacobs 2000Jacobs , 2016Kauffeld 1998Kauffeld , 2001Kauffeld , 2009van Eemeren et al 2014) have explained why speech acts may reasonably be expected to influence addressees just as the speaker intends. The theories are "normative" because they locate persuasive force in norms that message designs bring to bear in a situation, and "pragmatic" because they account for the persuasive force of actual message designs.…”

Section: Basic Normative Pragmatic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing on normative pragmatic theory (e.g., Goodwin 2001Goodwin , 2007Goodwin , 2011Innocenti 2011;Innocenti and Miller 2016;Jacobs 2000Jacobs , 2016Kauffeld 1998Kauffeld , 2001Kauffeld , 2009van Eemeren et al 2014), we argue that the normative structure of demanding involves speakers (1) openly making visible (a) their intent to influence addressees to accede, thereby (b) incurring an obligation to live up to a norm captured by the aphorism "right makes might." (2) The obligation is reciprocal; both speakers and addressees can hold each other accountable for recognizing and living up to the norm.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Persuasive Force of Demanding

Innocenti

Kathol

2018

Philosophy &Amp; Rhetoric

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Demanding is a fundamental rhetorical strategy for marginalized groups, but recent rhetorical theories of demanding have not explained how speakers can design demands to influence addressees to accede. Psychoanalytic and decolonial theories have identified constitutive functions, but have not explained how speakers can design demands that pressure addressees to accede. Speech act theories have explained specific kinds of demands but have not synthesized insights into a model of demanding generally. We draw on normative pragmatic theory to argue that speakers design demands that generate persuasive force by openly making visible their intent to influence addressees to accede and bringing to bear a reciprocal obligation for themselves and addressees to live up to the norm of "right makes might.

show abstract

Section: Basic Normative Pragmatic Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Persuasive Force of Demanding

Innocenti

Kathol

2018

Philosophy &Amp; Rhetoric

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our program encourages argumentation theorists to consider how a speaker can so design his discourse to create the conditions for its optimal reception, even under conditions of deep disagreement. Normative pragmatic studies have examined practical strategies for managing the local normative terrain by undertaking and imposing obligations regulating the ongoing interaction (Kauffeld 1998(Kauffeld , 2002Innocenti forthcoming); appropriate and inappropriate tactics for responding to bad behavior by other arguers (Jackson 2008); the design of deliberative fora for managing disagreements (Jackson 1998); and in general, how the force of the better argument is an achievement of the participants (Goodwin 2007). As the label ''normative pragmatics'' indicates, we are interested in accounting for how the discourse of deliberation can be both effective and good.…”

Section: A Normative Pragmatic Account Of the Appeal To Expert Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts

Goodwin

2011

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Work in Argumentation Studies (AS) and Studies in Expertise andExperience (SEE) has been proceeding on converging trajectories, moving from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. The two projects are therefore also converging on the need to account for how, in the course of complex and confused civic deliberations, nonexpert citizens can figure out which statements from purported experts deserve their trust. Both projects recognize that nonexperts cannot assess expertise directly; instead, the nonexpert must judge whether to trust the expert. But how is this social judgment accomplished? A normative pragmatic approach from AS can complement and extend the work from SEE on this question, showing that the expert's putting forward of his view and ''bonding'' it with his reputation for expertise works to force or ''blackmail'' his audience of citizens into heeding what he says. Appeals to authority thus produce the visibility and accountability we want for expert views in civic deliberations.My goal in this essay is to trace a convergence between scholarship in Argumentation Studies (AS) and in Studies in Expertise and Experience (SEE), and then to explore one way the two projects can complement and extend each other. I start by following the trajectories AS and SEE have taken from resistance to expert authority to a cautious acceptance of its legitimacy. Both AS and SEE thus find themselves confronting an important problem: to account for how, in the course

show abstract

“…The account is "normative" because it accounts for persuasive influence based on norms that strategies bring to bear in a situation, and "pragmatic" because it refers to actual communication practices. Normative pragmatic theories have been developed to account for the persuasive force of speech acts such as proposing and accusing, and for design features including graphics and appeals to authority and fear (Goodwin, 2002(Goodwin, , 2011Innocenti, 2011;Jacobs, 2000Jacobs, , 2006Kauffeld, 1998Kauffeld, , 2001Kauffeld, , 2009.…”

Section: Communication Design and Normative Pragmatic Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To make the case, we first review social scientific and rhetorical theories of political humor in order to specify how integrating communication design theory (Aakhus, ; Jackson & Aakhus, ) and normative pragmatic theory (Goodwin, ; Innocenti, ; Jacobs, ) complements them. We then describe a basic model of the persuasive force of communication design strategies.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%