Current project

In natural discourse, speakers many times reformulate what they (or others) have just said, usually for clarification purposes. In argumentative contexts, such reformulations might allow speakers to gain rhetorical advantages: in case the speaker reformulates an argument, what could come off as 'mere' paraphrase, in fact, might surreptitiously bring forward an additional argument, thereby increasing the argumentative import of the contribution.

This project aims to understand the multidimensional dynamics of rephrases as an argumentative device meant to influence an audience and to fulfill a variety of communicative tasks. This research goal is driven by the overarching question: How do speakers argue with rephrases? We address this problem by uncovering and exploring the dynamic patterns of rephrase on three dimensions associated with three disciplines. Contemporary philosophy of argumentation (with a speech act theoretic component, e.g., Searle, 1969) helps us identify schemes of rephrase that are analogous to argumentation schemes (see e.g., Walton et al., 2008), along with reframing structures (see e.g., Musi & Aakhus, 2019) which are analogous to known argumentative phenomena such as the straw man fallacy (see e.g., Oswald & Lewiński, 2014; Schumann, 2022). Drawing on extant accounts of reformulation and paraphrase, the pragmatic dimension of the project establishes the specificity and captures the richness of rephrase uses, encompassing locutionary manoeuvres to incorporate rephrase in dialogue, illocutionary intentions associated to rephrase, and their perlocutionary effects such as successful persuasion. Finally, insights from rhetoric provide us with a theoretical framework for capturing patterns of rephrase-sensitive rhetorical figures (such as antimetabole or anaphora) and rhetorical relations (such as elaboration or summarization). In so doing, we simultaneously inquire into how rephrase is linked to the three modes of persuasion: logos, ethos, and pathos.

Musi, E. & Aakhus, M. (2019). Frame fracking. Semantic frames as meta-argumentative indicators for knowledge-driven argument mining of controversies. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 112-135.

Oswald, S. & Lewiński, M. (2014). Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In T. Herman & S. Oswald (Eds.), Rhetoric & Cognition: Theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies (pp. 313-343). Peter Lang.

Schumann, J. (2022). The pragmatics of straw man fallacies. An experimental approach (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universität Bern.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D. N., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge University Press.