| Summary: | In order to take into account the efficacy of speech acts, we need to answer two complementary questions: What are the psychological and social stakes of a speech act? What are the linguistic processes involved in such an act aimed at achieving influence? To answer the first question, we must refer to the history of argumentative rhetoric, and in particular the one, which—from Aristotle to Perelman—, is aimed at the other in order to elicit adherence to a given position. But we should go further, since these authors have limited the scope of their theory to specific contexts of communication (such as political and forensic debates). The humanities and the social sciences have shown that human societies are composite, fragmentary and are made up of diverse fields of activity, all of which are constructed through interaction between individuals who attempt to socially regulate the power relationships resulting from such interaction. The Athenian deliberation model and the forensic debates persuasion model are no longer the only ones existing, and are not the most dominant ones either. Social relationships are no longer viewed as taking place on the “being true” or “seeming true” dichotomy; arguments are no longer judged according to their “logical force” or their “adherence power” ; we no longer look for an “absolute proof” related to the universal or a “circumstantial validity” within the limited framework of the particular. In order to answer the second question (What are the linguistic processes involved in such an act aimed at achieving influence?), and from the perspective of the speaking subject, we should take into account the problems a speaker encounters when she seeks to persuade someone: when in contact with another, what position of authority should we adopt, how do we touch the other, and consequently, how do we lay out what we have to say. The present paper aims at answering such questions.
|
|---|
