Comment repenser le rapport de la rhétorique et de l’argumentation ?
Michel Meyer
Argumentation et Analyse du Discours · 2009
doi:10.4000/aad.211 (opens in a new tab)
We email you when a new notice or a question about this paper appears.
Abstract
According to Aristotle, rhetoric is the counterpart of argumentation. How can we understand the relationship between literary, rhetoric and legal reasoning, if we do not have a general theory of rhetoric? Problematology purports to be precisely that. Questions can be addressed either directly, as in law and legal conflict, where the questions, the pros and the contras are, so to speak, on the table, or indirectly,through their answers, as if they were solved thereby. Rhetoric is the negotiation of the differences between the orator and the audience on a given question, which can be more or less problematic, rhetorical or argumentative. Problematology is the founding theory behind this “new” rhetoric. From the figures of speech to plausible inference, the theory of questioning offers an integrated view of reason, language and persuasion.
Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-ND
Reads
Read by people on this page
None yet.
Checked or read by AI through naulon
None yet.
A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.
Are you an author?
Is this your paper?
Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.