<<

: SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON AND

Oleh: Abd. Ghofur (Dosen Tetap Prodi Tadris Bahasa Inggris STAIN Pamekasan & Mahasiswa S3 Universitas Negeri Surabaya)

Abstract: This paper focuses on , particularly persuasive discourse, using pragmatics and rhetoric in a combined way, called by Pragma-Rhetoric. It can be said that this is a cognitive approach to both pragmatics and rhetoric. Pragmatics is essentially Gricean, Rhetoric comes from a of ’s Rhetoric, extending his notion of discourse to meso- and micro-. Two kinds of intentions have to be considered: first, communicative intention, and, then, persuasive intention. The fulfilment of those intentions is achieved by a successful persuasive-communicative . The psychological, philosophical and logical aspects derived from the pragma-rhetorical perspective are crucial in view of its applications in several practical domains.

Keywords: Discourse, pragmatics, rhetoric, , intention,

Introduction the intention of persuading.1 This clearly This article begin with a implies a theoretical choice in the field of recognition to a of action, pragmatics as far as pragmatics is not and communication, Marcelo conceived in a merely semiotic way (not Dascal, a Leibnizian who particularly to say, in an impossible “semiologic” interested in and pragmatics, way), but in an intentional way following who has contributed so much to the the path open by Austin and, particularly, development of in the last 30 by Grice. This also implies a new view on years. The aim of this paper is to show a the ancient rhetoric, a choice in favour of pragmatic and rhetorical view in 1 The combination of pragmatics and discourse analysis, combining both rhetoric has been suggested by some scholars, disciplines in order to explain the including Dascal himself, but it is quite difficult to intentional phenomena that occur in most “marry” such an ancient discipline as rhetoric with such a new discipline as pragmatics, if we do not communicative uses of language, put both in the same “register level”, i.e. in the level namely, the communicative intention and of intentionality. Read, Dascal, M. and A. G. Gross (1999), The Marriage Of Pragmatics And Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric 32 (2). DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur a neo-Aristotelian rhetoric, where, in the different ways. For some scholars what is well-known triangle --, important in discourse is just its structure, the elaboration and realisation of for others its functionality, for many discourse is especially analysed in terms others its social role, and for some others of what is inside the taxis (), that its communicative features in terms of is to say, the order of discourse, and not , cultural interaction, and so on.3 so much in terms of what is inside the For a long time forgot the elocution. In , this is a choice in favour analysis of discourse, even in semantics of a rhetoric linked to dialectics2 and not and pragmatics. Semantics was mainly so linked to poetics (or the current lexical and sometimes sentential, in the theory), introducing the idea of modern post-Fregean sense. the intention of persuading by the Pragmatics, before the analysis of discourse maker. , was the ‘waste-basket’ of The first section of the paper linguistics, 4 and it seems that general consists in a few remarks about the to context were enough for different approaches taken in discourse calling pragmatics to any language analysis in general, from sociology to theory. ethnomethodological Our main for not being analysis, in order to situate the interested in sociological approaches to perspective combining pragmatics and discourse analysis is that the standard rhetoric. The second section is devoted sociology of discourse takes it, at the to the way of same time, as an indicator of social communicative intention in Gricean practices, basically of social pragmatics. The third one focuses on a order/disorder, and as a factor of the neo-Aristotelian rhetoric that can be construction of social . This merged with pragmatics in a theory called approach can be seen in so different pragma-rhetoric, which is the topic of the authors as Goffman, 5 Bourdieu, 6 or fourth section. We end with a few Berger and Luckmann.7 What is lacking concluding remarks. in this approach is a socio-psychological conception of the discourse-maker, more Forms of discourse analysis 3 The most important conceptual Schiffrin, D. (1994), Approaches to discourse. Oxford: Blackwell problem of discourse analysis is the 4 Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971), Out of the delimitation of the very idea of discourse. Pragmatics Waste-Basket, Linguistic 2, P., 401-407 Depending on the different theoretical 5 Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of talk. views adopted for that analysis, Philadelphia: of Pennsylvania Press 6 discourse is conceptualized in quite Bourdieu, P. (1984), de Sociologie. Paris: Minuit 7 Berger, P. and Th. Luckmann (1966), 2 See, Aristotle, Rhetoric, on very The Social Construction of Reality. New York: beginning of his book Doubleday.

2 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur precisely, a cognitive conception of the structure and norms of the group.9 individuals involved in a discourse, The critique can be particularly alternatively taking the roles of speaker extended to the cultural analysis and . The sociological analysis approach of the Palo Alto School in what of discourse can contribute to is called “cultural pragmatics” (Bateson, of different social groups, and then to an Watzlawick and Hall), given the fact that of the interactions among methodologically they take the global those groups in terms of their contribution cultural as the departure point for to discourse production and studying communicative acts by reproduction, but it forgets all cognitive individuals. This is why they give an aspects (psychological and linguistic) of extraordinary to the analysis of discourse making and understanding. different kinds and levels of context. Foucault’s philosophical approach to Situating there the study of general discourse, especially focused on the interaction, considered as an open relationships between discourse and system where, particularly, power (the order of discourse is given by communication takes place. Taking into the discourse of order), is not very far account the effects of interaction on the from sociological approaches and lacks individuals, they distinguish between those same aspects.8 digital communication and analogical It happens quite the same with communication, and they on what some anthropologists, ethnographers of they call “pragmatic paradoxes” as the communication, and ethno way of reaching the core of their theory methodologists. Their analysis of on cultural pragmatics.10 discourse has to do with a more general In with these cultural analysis and the defense of approaches, we take into account the specific cultural identities and development of pragmatics from Austin . These approaches go from and Grice on. That means that the ethnography to ethno linguistics through pragmatic approach we take for some major trends in . What discourse analysis is an intentional one is remarkable here is that they collect a and not a behaviorist one, as it is the case huge number of empirical data of the semiotic pragmatics done in Morris’ (discourses), but at the end, there is no 9 See, Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in theoretical analysis –explanation- of Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: them, because in Prentice-Hall, read, Sacks, H. (1992), Lectures on Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell, see also, Sacks, communication is always something H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson (1974), A negotiated in the framework of the Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation, Language 50, P., 696-735. 10Watzlawick, P., J. Helmick Beavin, and 8 Foucault, M. (1966), Les Mots et les D. Jackson Don (1972), Une Logique de la Choses. Paris: Gallimard Communication. Paris: Seuil

OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 3 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur framework.11 the same time, but you cannot intend p and intend not-p at the same time. Pragmatics: Intentions in c. Their is presupposed to be communication attainable by the agent. You can Since the work by Austin and desire to go to the moon this Grice, linguistic pragmatics has been afternoon, but you cannot intend to go mainly focused on the communicative to the moon this afternoon (unless you use of language conceived as intentional are a multimillionaire who has made human action. The study of the agent’s an arrangement with some spatial beliefs, desires and, particularly, agency). intentions is crucial for understanding d. Their object represents their what she has done. Naturally, then, the conditions of satisfaction. analysis of beliefs, desires, and, Communicative intentions have also particularly, intentions is at the center of some features of their own: pragmatic studies. Grice’s study on e. They are usually intentions-in-action meaning intentions opened a long debate and not prior intentions (see Searle on the exact definition of the now 1983 for the distinction)13. so-called communicative intentions. Most f. They are social, in the Weberian approaches construct intention as a sense of social action, i.e. they are primitive mental state, i.e., non-definable always oriented towards some other in terms of other mental states such as agent –the addressee. beliefs and desires 12 . Communicative g. They are overt, that is, they are to be intentions share, of course, the recognized by the addressee. characteristics of intentions in general, h. Their satisfaction consists precisely in for instance: that recognition by the addressee. a. They are the mental causes of actions, The last three characteristics are that is, they are what together with already pointed out in the first version of some bodily movements constitute an M-intentions of Grice 14 and their exact action, as distinct from a mere . formulation seems to constitute the b. They have conditions of consistency. reason for the main critiques and You can desire p and desire not-p at subsequent reformulations by Grice himself : 11Morris, C. (1938), Foundations of the theory of . In O. Neurath, R. Carnap and C. ““U meant something by uttering Morris (ed.), International Encyclopaedia of Unified I, Chicago: Press, 13 Searle, J. (1983), Intentionality: An P., 77-138. Reprinted in C. Morris (1971), essay in the Philosophy of . Cambridge: on the General Theory of Signs, The Hague: Cambridge University Press. Mouton 14Ibid, 1957/1989. P., 220,, ““A meant 12 Grice, H. P. (1957), Meaning, something by x” is (roughly) equivalent to “A Philosophical Review 66, 377-388. Reprinted in H. intended the of x to produce some effect P. Grice, Studies in the Way of . Cambridge, in an audience by means of the recognition of this MA: Press, 1989, P., 213-223. intention””.

4 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur x” is true if, for some audience A, U utterance. This is what has been called uttered x intending: ‘illocutionary uptake’:16 (1) A to produce a particular response The exact formulation of this overt r nature of communicative intentions has (2) A to think (recognize) that U been a of hot debate, some intends (1) arguing for a reflexive (self-referential) (3) A to fulfill (1) on the basis of his definition, others for a potentially infinite fulfillment of (2).”15 but practically finite number of clauses in First, communicative intentions the definition, with conceptual, logical or are intentions to produce some response psychological . What seems to on the part of the addressee. The issue be a matter of consensus is that every has been to define what such a response covert or even neutral (with respect to its should exactly be. It seems that what the intended recognition by the addressee) speaker usually intends by her aspect of the speaker’s intention is left communicative action is to change the out of the definition of communicative mental states of the addressee. But what intentions. One way of summing this up change should it be for the is, finally, to say that the fulfillment of communicative intention to be communicative intentions consists successful? The intention of the speaker precisely in being recognized by the when she says, for instance, ‘It is raining’ addressee. could be to induce the addressee to Much of the work in current believe that it is raining or, maybe, to Pragmatics views linguistic believe that the speaker that it is understanding as the process of raining. But is any of these beliefs on the recognition of the speaker’s part of the addressee necessary for the communicative intentions. The communicative action to be successful addressee relies on linguistic and qua communicative action? The most extralinguistic for reaching common answer has been negative. Perlocutionary aspects of that sort have 16 “In the case of illocutionary acts we been excluded from the content of succeed in doing what we are trying to do by getting our audience to recognize what we are communicative intentions. It seems that trying to do. But the ‘effect’ on the hearer is not a the addressee’s only new mental state or a response; it consists simply in the hearer understanding the utterance of the speaker.” needed is his recognition of the speaker’s Searle, J. (1969), Acts: An Essay in the communicative intention; his . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 47; Read also, “The understanding of the speaker’s understanding of the force of an utterance in all cases involves recognizing what may be called 15Grice, H. P. (1969), Utterer’s Meaning broadly an audience-directed intention and and Intentions, Philosophical Review 78, p. 92. recognizing it as wholly overt, as intended to be Reprinted in H. P. Grice, Studies in the Way of recognized.” Strawson, P. F. (1964), Intention and Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, in Speech Acts. Philosophical Review 1989, p. 86-116. 73, p. 439-60.

OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 5 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur that recognition. The ulterior perlocutionary effects on the audience, It has been a very common view intended or not intended by the speaker, to emphasize the relevance of pathos in are usually ignored by pragmatic studies. classical rhetoric, contrary to the This is where rhetoric can make its insistence by Aristotle on all the three contribution. Persuasive as well as components “ethos, logos, pathos,” and convincing and other kinds of particularly on logos. Remember perlocutionary intentions seem to Aristotle’s words in the sense that the constitute the basis of rhetorical studies best rhetorician is that who is in of linguistic use. syllogisms. It is noteworthy that in the

of a discourse Aristotle gives Rhetoric: A new vision of an old art an especial importance to the taxis, that One of the worst things that is, to the configuration and ordering of the happened to rhetoric was its inclusion as elements of the discourse. Book III of his a part of literature theory and practice, Rhetoric is not simply a book on . It is thus forgetting its original status in the works, for example, of and also a book on the parts of speech, which Aristotle. Isocrates’ Against the , means a book on the internal ordering of which in fact is the opening declaration of discourse. his School of Rhetoric, is a good It is crucial for our purpose to take precedent of Book I of Aristotle’s this idea of ordering, not only for the Rhetoric. It is clear that Aristotle macro-discourses of the three rhetorical lacks a definition of rhetoric and that the kinds of discourse (deliberative, forensic, beginning of Book I is an attempt to ) taken into account by the situate it in relation with : Greek tradition, but also for the micro- and meso-discourses, in which we are “It is further evident that it interested when analysing everyday belongs to Rhetoric to discover the real and apparent means of persuasion, just communication. This is particularly as it belongs to to discover the applicable to argumentative discourses, real and apparent syllogism… Rhetoric then may be defined as the of where the aim of persuading takes the discovering the possible means of form of that of convincing by ways of persuasion in to any subject whatever. This is the function of no other argumentation. In fact, its is very of , each of which is able to instruct well-known that even in the case of proofs and persuade in its own special subject; thus, medicine deals with health and (in mathematics and ) the order sickness, geometry with the properties of giving the structure of a demonstration magnitudes, arithmetic with number, and similarly with all the other arts and can change without altering the result, 17 .” making easier or more difficult the

17Ibid, Aristotle, Rhetoric I, p. 1355b15 & 25-30.

6 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur understanding of the of a theorem. is lacking in that approach is a cognitive A fortiori with everyday argumentations. vision of argumentation, and it must be This idea was noted, among others, by said that, at the same time, they take a Apostel 18 , when he presented an biased perspective on rhetoric, as far as assertion logic for a theory of they view rhetoric basically as a argumentation following Rescher’s pathos-oriented rhetoric, minimizing the way 19 , and spoke about “internal importance of the ethos and especially of democracy” in Greek geometry, and, by the logos, and, consequently, that they , in any axiomatics. do not take rhetoric into consideration. At One of the most interesting recent the end, the output is that pragmatics approaches in is collapses into semantics. “pragma-dialectics”, which was open by Rhetoric is obviously not only van Eemeren and Grootendorst, inspired important for argumentation theorists, but by the Aristotelian dialectics and rhetoric, for the production, analysis and linking speech theory with the evaluation of any kind of persuasive dialectical theory of “critical discourse. The study of by the rationalists” 20 . The analysis of new takes an especial argumentative discourse, taken as importance today, because of the new “verbal, social and rational activity aimed kinds of audiences derived from new at convincing a reasonable critic of the forms and modes of communication, in a acceptability of a standpoint by time where information technologies advancing a constellation of applied to communication systems are justifying or refuting the evolving fast. Particular interest deserves expressed in the standpoint”, is done by the study of complex (media) audiences the study of the points of view, and very diffuse ones. It has to be noted unexpressed , that the interest of rhetoric for audiences schemes, argumentation structures and, is not a sociological one. Rhetoric is particularly, . Arguments are interested in the way of shaping interpreted and reconstructed in that way, audiences by means of the realization of in order to get a clear view of the process discourses. of argumentation. In our viewpoint, what To return to Aristotle’s Rhetoric means to take into account the role 18 Apostel, L. (1971), Assertion Logic and played by the logos (and the ethos) jointly a Theory of Argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 4, p. 92-110 with the pathos. The ethos and the pathos 19 Rescher, N. (1968), in are constructed by the discourse itself, . Dordrecht: Reidel 20 Eemeren, F.H. van, and R. they are not external to it, on the contrary, Grootendorst (1984), Speech Acts in they are shaped in terms of the evolution Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.

OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 7 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur of the discourse. This is the main reason discourse in a dynamic perspective, given for giving so much importance to the the fact that real discourse is what is logos, as Aristotle did. 21 Consequently, finally performed as discourse with all the this is also the main reason for moves made in the process. What is emphasising the relevance of the important to point out is that the structure of discourse as it is fixed in the determination of that dynamic order taxis phase of its composition.22This old responds to the intention of persuading idea was renewed by Enlightenment by the discourse-maker. Pragma-rhetoric rhetorical theorists such as Campbell 23 is not isolated from logic, on the contrary, and Whately, 24 and more recently by it takes logic at the very ground in Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyte. 25 From discourse construction, but the crucial another side, people interested in notion of the intention to persuade links argumentative rhetoric with pragmatics in a global gave also a particular importance to the intentional architecture of individuals, logos of that kind of discourse, and that distinguishing and combining at the same lead to an abundant literature in “informal time communicative intention and logic”26. persuasive intention. It is very clear that these two intentions are in different levels. We need first the fulfillment of The basis of Pragma-Rhetoric communicative intention, in order to In our own pragma-rhetoric make possible then the fulfillment of approach, the rhetoric aspect is persuasive intention (particularly, the essentially devoted to a study of order, intention to convince in argumentative i.e. to the planning of discourse, which discourse). Both in monological means the production of the structure of discourse and in dialogical (or multilogical) discourse –in what we are 21 See, Conley, Th. M. (1990), Rhetoric in more interested- the unit of analysis is a the European Tradition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. unique , where by means of 22 Read, Reboul, O. (1991), Introduction à the satisfaction of the communicative la rhétorique. Paris: P.U.F 23Campbell, G. (1776), The Philosophy of intention one can get the satisfaction of a Rhetoric. Re-edited in 1936, Southern Illinois persuasive intention (we are speaking, of University Press. 24Read, Whately, R. (1828), Elements of course, of persuasive communication). Rhetoric. Reprinted in 1857 in London: Parker & What is the content of persuasive son 25Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrecht-Tyteca intentions? We are basically speaking (1958), Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle about a very stable kind of intention, rhétorique. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles. persistent through all the process of 26 Walton, D.N. (1989), . elaboration and performance of a Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

8 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur discourse, oriented to a particular type of the case of the intention to convince (by behavior on the part of the hearers (as arguments) or as in particular kinds of communicative intentions, persuasive persuasive intentions in especial intentions lead to a particular kind of discourse contexts. But it clearly can also individual social actions), namely, their be a covert intention: think, for example, persuasion in terms of the acceptance of about a situation where the speaker beliefs and goals expressed by the intends to persuade the hearers hiding speaker (or, at least, a significant the real persuasive intention behind her reduction in the distance between the discourse behavior, because this is just mental states manifested by the speaker the way of getting her goal in that and those of the hearers, naturally particular situation. In any case, it is intending to lead hearers to action).27 worth saying that persuasive intention It is evident that in our leads the speaker to the determination of pragma-rhetorical approach to the the structure of discourse in the taxis analysis of persuasive discourse we are phase. No , when we speak about putting in place, so to speak, a cognitive the structure of discourse, we are rhetoric, where basic intentional speaking in a broader sense than components have to be considered in Aristotle did, when he studied the division relationship with emotive components of the parts of speech in Book III of his and any other psychological aspect of Rhetoric, taking into account precisely speakers and hearers, changing our broader notion of discourse, alternatively their roles in the production applicable, as we noted above, to micro- of discourses. It is noteworthy that, unlike and meso-discourses. communicative intention, persuasive One of the consequences of this intention in general is not an overt cognitive approach to rhetoric in our intention. It can be an overt intention as in pragma-rhetorical view is that we can aim at a psychological (and

27“Lastly, persuasion is produced by the socio-psychological) and philosophical speech itself, when we establish the true or (philosophy of language, mind and apparently true from the means of persuasion applicable to each individual subject. Now, since action) combined study of the intentions proofs are affected by these means, it is evident involved in persuasive communication. A that, to be able to grasp them, a man must be capable of logical reasoning, of studying next step can probably be reached if we characters and the virtues, and thirdly the are interested in the formalization of emotions –the nature and of each, its origin, and the manner in which it is produced. those intentions. Some proposals have Thus it appears that Rhetoric is as it were an been made for communicative intention offshoot of Dialectic and of the science of , which may be reasonably called Politics.” and we are trying to do some new ones (Rhetoric I, p. 1356a-15-30); see Ibid, Aristotle’s for persuasive intention. Having in mind Rhetoric: Book I.

OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 9 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur the idea of applying them to the and crucial domains. elaboration of communication schemes

(in natural language processing and in systems of agency), to the production and analysis of discourse by automatic means, to argumentation theory, to discourse polemology (discussions, disputes) in the way open by Dascal’s psychopragmatics.

Last remarks Let us make a few concluding remarks. First, proposing a pragma-rhetorical analysis of persuasive discourse, in terms of the study of two especial intentions, situated in different intentional levels: communicative intentions first, and then persuasive intentions. Second, we claim that a new reading of the Aristotelian rhetoric is crucial for that purpose, because of the importance given by Aristotle to the logos, in connection with the ethos and the pathos. Of course, a new reading is required if we enlarge the notion of discourse from the classical Greek tradition to current everyday discourses in extensively information-technology based . Third, the pragmatic component of our approach is essentially the one developed after Grice’s foundation of pragmatics. Fourth, the psychological, philosophical and logical aspects of our pragma-rhetorical study of persuasive communication have to be seriously and urgently developed, given their applicability in very different

10 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur

References Pennsylvania Press.

Grice, H. P. (1957), Meaning, Apostel, L. (1971), Assertion logic and a Philosophical Review 66, theory of argumentation. 377-388. Reprinted in H. P. Grice, Philosophy and Rhetoric 4, Studies in the Way of Words. 92-110. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989, pp. Aristotle, Rhetoric. 213-223.

Bar-Hillel, Y. (1971), Out of the pragmatic Grice, H. P. (1969), Utterer’s Meaning waste-basket, 2, and Intentions, Philosophical 401-407. Review 78, 147-177. Reprinted in H. P. Grice, Studies in the Way of Berger, P. and Th. Luckmann (1966), Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard The Social Construction of University Press, 1989, pp. Reality. New York: Doubleday. 86-116.

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Questions de Isocrates, . Sociologie. Paris: Minuit. Morris, C. (1938), Foundations of the Campbell, G. (1776), The Philosophy of theory of signs. In O. Neurath, R. Rhetoric. Re-edited in 1936, Carnap and C. Morris (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press. International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science I, Chicago: Conley, Th. M. (1990), Rhetoric in the University of Chicago Press, pp. European tradition. Chicago: The 77-138. Reprinted in C. Morris University of Chicago Press. (1971), Writings on the general theory of signs, The Hague: Dascal, M. and A. G. Gross (1999), The Mouton. marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrecht-Tyteca 32 (2). (1958), Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.) (2001), Crucial Editions de l’Université de in Argumentation Bruxelles. Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2001. Reboul, O. (1991), Introduction à la rhétorique. Paris: P.U.F. Eemeren, F.H. van, and R. Grootendorst (1984), Speech acts in Rescher, N. (1968), Topics in argumentative discussions. Philosophical Logic. Dordrecht: Dordrecht: Foris. Reidel.

Foucault, M. (1966), Les Mots et les Sacks, H. (1992), Lectures on Choses. Paris: Gallimard. Conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.

Garfinkel, H. (1967), Studies in Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Ethnomethodology. Englewood Jefferson (1974), A simplest Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation, Goffman, E. (1981), Forms of talk. Language 50, 696-735. Philadelphia: University of

OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011 11 DISCOURSE ANALYSIS; SOME CONCEPTUAL REMARKS ON PRAGMATICS & RHETORIC Abd. Ghofur

Schiffrin, D. (1994), Approaches to Philosophical Review 73, 439-60. discourse. Oxford: Blackwell. Walton, D.N. (1989), Informal logic. Searle, J. (1969), Speech Acts: An essay Cambridge: Cambridge University in the philosophy of language. Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Watzlawick, P., J. Helmick Beavin, and D. Jackson Don (1972), Une Searle, J. (1983), Intentionality: An essay logique de la communication. in the . Paris: Seuil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whately, R. (1828), Elements of Rhetoric. Reprinted in 1857 in Strawson, P. F. (1964), Intention and London: Parker & son. Convention in Speech Acts.

12 OKARA, Vol. I, Tahun 6, Mei 2011