Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T05:07:28.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“You die for life”: On the use of poetic devices in argumentation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Charleen Rains
Charleen Rains
Affiliation:
Département d'anthropologie, Université de Montréal, CP 6128 Suce. “A” Montréal, Québec H3C 3J4Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Analysis of a sociolinguistic interview reveals repeated presentation of ideas, words, expressions, and structures. These recurrent devices and patterns increase the effect of arguments. The immediate purpose is the listener's acceptance of the speaker's views. There is also a concern to gain recognition of the speaker's opinion of self and his position in society. (Poetics in conversation, argumentation, repetition, Montreal French, Quebec)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1992 , pp. 253 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chafe, W. L. (1980). The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In Chafe, W. L. (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and lingusitic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 9–50.Google Scholar
Fox, J. (1974). Our ancestors spoke in pairs. In Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 65–85.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1981). “In vain I tried to tell you”: Essays in Native America ethnopoetics. (Studies in Native American Literature, 1.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. ([1972] 1986). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. New York: Basil Blackwell. 35–71.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 350–73.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1983). Presentation as proof: The language of Arabic rhetoric. Anthropological Linguistics 25:47–60.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1989). Linguistic strategies and cultural styles for persuasive discourse. In Toomey, S. Ting & Korzenny, F. (eds.), Language, communication, and culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 139–56.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Luzzati, D. (1983). Recherches sur la structure du discours oral spontané. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris III.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Cedergren, H. (1971). Some results of a sociolinguistic study of Montreal French. In Darnell, R. (ed.), Lingusitic diversity in Canadian society. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. 61–87.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1985). Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis. Volume 3. Discourse and dialogue. New York: Academic. 35–46.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1984). On the pragmatic “poetry” of prose: Parallelism, repetition, and cohesive structure in the time course of dyadic conversation. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Lingusitic applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 181–99.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1987). Repetition and variation as spontaneous formulaicity in conversation. Language 63: 574–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P., & Vincent, D. (1990). Un corpus de français parlé. Quebec: Université Laval.Google Scholar
Ward, G. (1990). The discourse functions of VP preposing. Language 66:742–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar