A manipulative technique in a congressional debate A case study from 1789

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterScientificpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This article examines a debate in the United States House of Representatives in 1789 and presents a case study of ad socordiam, which is shown to be an informal fallacy in the language of politics. This fallacy is based on inferences about covert intentions of speakers, depending in part on the level of the hearer's epistemic vigilance. The study shows how an inference about a speaker's intention can be substantiated on the basis of evidence even in the case of a historical debate. The present study advocates a view of pragmatics and discourse analysis that regards inferences about covert intentions as a legitimate object of investigation to provide a fuller picture of political debates involving deep disagreements and manipulation.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationUnlocking the History of English
Subtitle of host publicationPragmatics, prescriptivism and text types
EditorsLuisella Caon, Moragh S. Gordon, Thijs Porck
PublisherJohn Benjamins
Pages86-100
Number of pages15
ISBN (Electronic)9789027246998
ISBN (Print) 9789027214720
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2024
Publication typeA3 Book chapter

Publication series

NameCurrent Issues in Linguistic Theory
Volume364
ISSN (Electronic)0304-0763

Keywords

  • ad socordiam
  • Bill of Rights
  • covert intentions
  • deceptive communication
  • James Jackson

Publication forum classification

  • Publication forum level 2

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A manipulative technique in a congressional debate A case study from 1789'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this