Limitations of the logico-rhetorical module

Inconsistency in argument, online discussion forums and Electronic Deconstruction

Bibliographic Data

ID7750779
AuthorsKieran O’halloran (0000-0003-3424-994X, King’s College, University of London, UK, corresponding author)
Year2011
Volume13
Issue6
Pages797-806
Publication date2011-12-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueDiscourse Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-4456 • E-ISSN: 1461-7080
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/1461445611421360d
OpenAlexW2128354940
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited7

My focus is the ‘logico-rhetorical module’ (Sperber, 2000). This mental module, Sperber hypothesizes, is an evolved ability of human beings to examine critically what someone is saying, for example, to detect inconsistency or inadequate evidence in an argument. On the assumption that we have this natural ability, Chilton (2005) questions the need for Critical Discourse Analysis; in contrast, on his reading of Sperber’s work, Hart (this issue) argues the opposite. In this article, I agree with Chilton’s (2005) stance to the extent that the competence of the logico-rhetorical module is, generally speaking, adequate for enabling critical engagement with verbal input. That said, I highlight two (non-competence related) limitations of the logico-rhetorical module for detecting inconsistency in arguments. To address these limitations, I hold a new approach is needed in Critical Discourse Analysis. This is one which draws on the corpus linguistic method; I refer to it as Electronic Deconstruction

Epistemology · Linguistics · Rhetorical question · Sociology · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub