Challenging Authority with Argumentation

The Pragmatics of Arguments from and to Authority

Datos Bibliográficos

ID5901310
AutoresMarcin Lewiński (0000-0002-7218-3948, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, autor de correspondencia)
Año2022
Volumen7
Número3
Páginas207
Fecha de publicación2022-08-03
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaLanguages (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 2226-471X • E-ISSN: 2226-471X
EditorialMDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT)
DOI10.3390/languages7030207
OpenAlexW4289517320
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas5
Referencias citadas68

Authority is both a pragmatic condition of much public discourse and a form of argumentative appeal routinely used in it. The goal of this contribution is to propose a new account of challenging authority in argumentative discourse that benefits from the interplay of the resources of recent speech act theory and argumentation theory. Going beyond standard approaches of the two disciplines, the paper analyzes nuanced forms of establishing and, especially, challenging discourse-related authority. Can Donald Trump advise his own scientific advisors on potential COVID-19 treatments? Addressing questions like this, the paper identifies various paradoxes of authority and the forms of authority discussed in the literature. It then distinguishes between argument from authority (or expert opinion) and argument to authority (or expert opinion) and argues that this rearranged structure mutually benefits the pragmatic account of speech act theory and the schematic account of argumentation theory in the task of better understanding and critiquing discourses such as Trump's

Appeal · Argument (complex analysis · Argumentation theory · Argumentative · Epistemology · Political science · Sociology · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Law · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation · Philosophy