Argumentation by figurative language in verbal communication : a pragmatic perspective
This thesis has two goals. The first is to explain, within a pragmatic perspective, how figurative language (i.e. metaphor and irony) performs argumentation. Based on the argumentation theory (AT) of Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca (1958), argumentation is defined as the process of justifying something in an organized or logical way, which is composed of one or more claims and shows one or more grounds for maintaining them. The second goal is to examine the hearer's interpretation of figurative utterances in argumentation. The theoretical foundation of this discussion is based on experientialist epistemology (i.e. experientialism) and cognitive pragmatics in the form of Relevance Theory (RT). In pursuit of those goals, I present four main innovations: First, I argue the status of metaphor should be viewed as âwhat is implicated', rather than âwhat is said'. Second, I propose explanation of some exceptional cases of irony, which the standard RT approach does not treat, which relies on the notion of âincongruity'. Third, I propose integration of AT concepts within RT. Thus, this approach contributes to pursuing more economical explanation of communication as argumentation, by a single principle of relevance,
Dae-Young, Kim
P0101 Language. Linguistic theory. Comparative grammar
Argumentation by figurative language in verbal communication : a pragmatic perspective. This thesis has two goals. The first is to explain, within a pragmatic perspective, how figurative language (i.e. metaphor and irony) performs argumentation. Based on the argumentation theory (AT) of Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca (1958), argumentation is defined as the process of justifying something in an organized or logical way, which is composed of one or more claims and shows one or more grounds for maintaining them. The second goal is to examine the hearer's interpretation of figurative utterances in argumentation. The theoretical foundation of this discussion is based on experientialist epistemology (i.e. experientialism) and cognitive pragmatics in the form of Relevance Theory (RT). In pursuit of those goals, I present four main innovations: First, I argue the status of metaphor should be viewed as âwhat is implicated', rather than âwhat is said'. Second, I propose explanation of some exceptional cases of irony, which the standard RT approach does not treat, which relies on the notion of âincongruity'. Third, I propose integration of AT concepts within RT. Thus, this approach contributes to pursuing more economical explanation of communication as argumentation, by a single principle of relevance,
argumentation figurative_language verbal_communication pragmatic_perspective goal first explain within pragmatic_perspective figurative_language metaphor irony perform argumentation based argumentation theory argumentation define process justify something organize logical way compose claim show ground maintain them second goal_examine hearer interpretation figurative utterance argumentation theoretical_foundation discussion base epistemology cognitive pragmatic form relevance_theory pursuit goal present four_main innovation first argue status metaphor view implicate rather say second propose explanation exceptional case irony standard treat rely notion third propose integration concept within thus_contribute pursue economical explanation communication argumentation single principle relevance