Définir l’argumentation Entre néo-rhétorique et sciences du langage
To define argumentation. Between new rhetoric and language sciences

Summary/Abstract: The book Argumentation. Analyser textes et discours (Doury, 2016) comes within the scope of language science. From this angle this work clearly distinguishes itself from The Treatise on Argumentation (Le traité de l’argumentation) published almost 60 years before (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1958). Prior to the development of pragmatics or discourse analysis, The New Rhetoric focuses on discourse techniques which enable an “orator” (a litigant, a smooth talker, but also a scholar or a philosopher) to influence others. The Treatise’s focus on discourse techniques has naturally aroused the interest of language specialists. But, at the end of the day, The Treatise finds its inspiration less in linguistic issues than in philosophical ones. Our purpose is to compare Doury’s book with the Treatise to measure the impact of this discrepancy. We will argue that beyond that evident contrast between methodologies and theoretical approaches, the structure of the two books appear, in some way, oddly similar. The structure of Doury’s textbook, particularly clear and explicit, will be used to emphasize another aspect than Perlman’s rehabilitation of rhetoric. This other aspect could be called the study of a logic with a human face.

• Details
• Contents