Discourse implicature, Quintilian and the Lucidity Principle: rhetorical phenomena in pragmatics

• Authors: Michael Burke
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

At a meta-level this article seeks to reduce the perceived gap that exists between classical rhetoric on the one hand and linguistics on the other. The linguistic focus here will be on pragmatics and discourse phenomena. In this article, the main tenets of classical rhetoric will first be set out. Thereafter, some examples of productive crossover work from both sides that has sought to unify rhetoric and pragmatics will be discussed. Next, a number of suggestions will be put forward as to why there has been so little cooperation. These will highlight aspects of scope and audience. Finally, some solutions will be offered as to how those perceived stumbling blocks might be eliminated. In this discussion, there will be a particular focus on the pragmatic notion of implicature from the perspective of Grice, the neo-Griceans and also the Roman rhetorician Quintilian. In the case of the latter, his ideas on the importance of lucidity in productive discourse situations will be explored and recast within a light of modern pragmatic theory.

Keywords

EN

rhetoric; pragmatics; implicature; Quintilian; lucidity

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Topics in Linguistics
• Year: 2016
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 1-16

Dates

published

2016-06-01

online

2016-06-15

Contributors

author

Michael Burke

• University College Roosevelt, Utrecht University Langenoordstraat 1 4331 CB, Middelburg The Netherlands

References

• ARISTOTLE., 1926. The art of rhetoric. Trans. J. H. Freese. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd.
• BLAKEMORE, D., 1992. Understanding utterances: An introduction to pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.
• BROWN, P. and LEVINSON, S., 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• BRUMMETT, B., 2006. Rhetoric in popular culture. 2nd ed. London: Sage
• BURKE, K., 1950/1992. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• CICERO., 1949. De inventione (On invention). Trans. H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd.
• [CICERO]., 1981. Rhetorica ad Herennium. Trans. H. Caplan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd.
• CHAPMAN, S., 2009. Paul Grice: Philosopher and linguist. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• CHAPMAN, S., 2011. Pragmatics. London: Palgrave, Macmillan.
• CLARK, B., 2013. Relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• CLYNE, M., 1996. Inter-cultural communication at work: Cultural values in discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• CONLEY, T. M., 1990. Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
• CORBETT, E. P. J. and CONNORS, R. J., 1999. Classical rhetoric for the modern student. 4th ed., Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
• CROWLEY, S. and HAWHEE, D., 2012. Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. 5th ed. London: Pearson Education Inc.
• DASCAL, M. and GROSS, A. G., 1999. The marriage of pragmatics and rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 107-130.
• DIXON, P., 1971. Rhetoric. London: Methuen and Co Ltd.
• EIDENMULLER, M., 2008. Great speeches for better speaking. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill Education.
• GRICE, P. H., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole, J.L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41-58.
• GRICE, P. H., 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• GRUNDY, P., 2008. Doing pragmatics. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.[WoS]
• HERRICK, J. A., 2005. The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction. 3rd ed. London: Pearson Education Inc.
• HORN, L. R., 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In: D. Schiffrin ed. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 11-42.
• JACKSON, S., and JACOBS, S., 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 251-265.
• KELLER, S. D., 2010. Combining rhetoric and pragmatics to read Othello. English Studies, vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 398-411.[WoS]
• KENNEDY, G. A., 1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• KENNEDY, G. A., 1998. Comparative rhetoric: A historical and cross-cultural introduction. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
• LEECH, G., 1983. Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.
• LEVINSON, S., 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• LOCKE, J., 1995. An essay concerning human understanding. London: Prometheus Books.
• NEMISI, A. L., 2013. Implicature phenomena in classical rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 129-151.[WoS]
• OLMSTED, W., 2006. Rhetoric: An historical introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
• PERNOT, L., 2005. Rhetoric in antiquity. Trans W. E. Higgins. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press.
• QUINTILIAN., 1921. Institutio Oratoria. Trans. D. A. Russell. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/William Heinemann Ltd.
• RAMAGE, J. D., 2006. Rhetoric: A user’s guide. London: Pearson Education Inc.
• RICHARDS, I. A., 1965/1936. The philosophy of rhetoric. New York and London: Oxford University Press.
• RICHARDS, J., 2008. Rhetoric. London: Routledge.
• SPEDDING, J., ELLIS, R. L. and HEATH, D., D., eds. 2011. The works of Francis Bacon: Vol 3 The philosophical works. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• SPERBER, D. and WILSON, D., 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• WILSON, D, and SPERBER, D., 1981, On Grice’s theory of conversation. In: P. Werth, ed. Conversation and discourse. London: Croom Helm, pp. 155-78.
• ZIPF, G. K., 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Oxford: Addison-Wesley Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/topling-2016-0001