|Full Title:||Non-Verbal Means of Argumentation (Across Disciplines and Cultures)|
|Location:||New Delhi, India|
|Start Date:||08-Sep-2013 - 13-Sep-2013|
|Contact:||Igor Ž. Žagar|
|Meeting Email:||click here to access email|
|Meeting Description:||In the field of pragmatics, there has been a lot of work on non-verbal communication in the last decade(s). Extensive studies by Fernando Poyatos are especially salient (Nonverbal Communication across Disciplines (2002); Advances in Non-Verbal Communication: Sociocultural, Clinical, Esthetic and Literary Perspectives (1992); New Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication (1984), as well as work on gestures by Armstrong, Stokoe and Wilcox (Gesture and the Nature of Language (1995) and Streeck (Gesturecraft (2009)).
At approximately at the same time, the field of rhetoric and argumentation, in the last fifty years mostly influenced by classical rhetoric (Aristotel, Cicero, etc.), Perelman and Olbrecht-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric (1958), Toulmin’s The Uses of Arguments (1958), pragma-dialectics (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Houtlosser, (1983 - )), and informal logic (Johnson, Blair, Govier, (1981 - )), started to open for new approaches, especially in visual argumentation (Groarke, Birdsell, van den Hove, (1996 - )). The pioneering work in this respect is a book by Michael Gilbert Coalescent Argumentation (1997) that introduces four modes of argument(ation): logical, emotional, visceral and kisceral.
This panel, organized within the 13th International Pragmatics Conference, would like to explore not just visual (and musical), gestural, emotional, and physical elements of argumentation, but also (and, if possibly, focusing on) smell, taste and touch as possible contributors to argumentation. Our basic concern will be the following two research questions:
1) Can visuals, music, gestures, (expressions of) emotions, smell, taste and touch stand alone as arguments?
2) Is it not that only the verbal ‘glossing’ and ‘translation’ turns smell, taste, touch, emotions, gestures, music and visuals into arguments?
Examples from different areas of expertise (and, if possible, different cultures) will be considered, and experts from different areas to contribute to the panel.
Igor Z. Zagar, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Leo Groarke, Windsor, Canada
Paul van den Hove, Utrecht, The Netherlands
|Linguistic Subfield:||Anthropological Linguistics; Discourse Analysis; Neurolinguistics; Pragmatics; Sociolinguistics|
| This is a session of the following meeting:
13th International Pragmatics Conference
|Calls and Conferences main page|