This paper tests a proto-model of historical religious polemic discourse through a case study of a 1690s dispute between the schismatic former Quaker George Keith and Thomas Ellwood, a prominent Quaker representing the Quaker movement in England at that time. Thomas Gloning, Gerd Fritz, and others, suggest certain rhetorical strategies underlie functional and evaluative argumentation language typically employed. Findings contrast discourse elements common to the Keithian texts that do match some traditional characteristics, despite a superficial impression indicating otherwise, but show too where the model fails. An additional approach, not part of the traditional model, touches on linguistic politeness theory.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Bauman Richard , Let Your Words Be Few: Symbolism and Silence among Seventeenth-century Quakers, 2nd ed. (London: Quaker Home Service, 1998).
Bax Marcel , & Kádár Dániel Z. (eds.), Understanding Historical (Im)politeness: Relational Linguistic Practice over Time and across Cultures (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012).
Bousfield Derek , Impoliteness in Interaction (Philadelphia & Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008).
Bramhall John , Castigations of Mr. Hobbes: His Late Animadversions in the Case Concerning Liberty and Universal Necessity (London: printed by E.T. for J. Crook, 1658).
Culpeper Jonathan , Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Culpeper Jonathan , “Impoliteness Strategies,” in: Capone Alessandro & Mey Jacob L. (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 4 (Heidelberg: Springer, 2015), 421–445 .
Culpeper Jonathan , & Kádár Dániel Z. , “Historical (Im)politeness: An Introduction,” in: Culpeper Jonathan & Kádár Dániel Z. (eds.), Historical (Im)politeness. Linguistic Insights 65 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2010), 9–36.
Dascal Marcelo , “Dichotomies and Types of Debate,” in: van Eemeren Frans & Garssen Bart (eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008), 27–50.
Ellwood Thomas , An Answer to George Keith’s Narrative of His Proceedings at Turners-Hall, on the 11th of the Month Called June, 1696 (London: 1696).
Fritz Gerd , “Topics in the History of Dialogue Forms,” in: Jucker Andreas et al. (eds.), Historical Pragmatics (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995), 469–498.
Fritz Gerd , “Dialogical Structures in 17th century Controversies,” in: Bondi Marina et al. (eds.), Dialogue Analysis 2000 (Tubingen: Max Niemeyer, 2003), 199–208.
Fritz Gerd , “First Person Singular in 17th century Controversies,” in: Barotta Pierluigi & Dascal Marcelo (eds.), Controversies and Subjectivity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005), 235–250.
Fritz Gerd , “On Answering Accusations,” Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences (2005), 151–162.
Fritz Gerd , “Communication Principles for Controversies: A Historical Perspective,” in: van Eemeren Frans & Garssen Bart (eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008), 109–124.
Gloning Thomas , “Pragmatic Forms of Religious Controversies around 1600: A Case Study in the Osiander, Scherer & Rosenbusch Controversy,” in: Jucker Andreas , Fritz Gerd , & Lebsanft Franz (eds.), Historical Dialogue Analysis (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1999), 81–110.
Gloning Thomas “Early Modern Controversies and Theories of Controversy: The Rules of the Game and the Role of the Persons,” in: Barotta Pierluigi & Dascal Marcelo (eds.), Controversies and Subjectivity (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005), 263–282.
Hobbes Thomas , The Questions Concerning Liberty, Necessity, and Chance: Clearly Stated and Debated Between Dr. Bramhall, Bishop of Derry and Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (London: Printed for Andrew Crook, 1656).
Kádár Daniel Z. , & Haugh Michael , Understanding Politeness (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Kádár Daniel Z. , & Marquez-Reiter Rosina , “(Im)politeness and (Im)morality: Insights from Bystander Intervention,” Journal of Politeness Research 11/2 (2015), 239–260.
Keith George , An Exact Narrative of the Proceedings at Turners-Hall, the 11th of the Month Called June, 1696 Together with the Disputes and Speeches There, Between G. Keith and Other Quakers (London: 1696).
Khorasani Manouchehr , The Development of Controversies: From the Early Modern Period to Online Discussion Forums (Bern: Peter Lang, 2008).
Lucy John A. (ed.), Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Martin Clare , “Tradition Versus Innovation: The Hat, Wilkinson-Story and Keithian Controversies,” Quaker Studies 8/1 (2003), 5–22. http://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/quakerstudies/vol8/iss1/1(accessed 2 April 2017).
Penington John , Reflections upon George Keith’s Late Advertisement of a Meeting to Be Held by Him and His Friends, at Turner’s-Hall on the Eleventh of the Fourth Month, 1696 (London: 1696).
Perry Elisabeth Israels , From Theology to History: French Religious Controversy and the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973).
Proffitt Michael , ed., Oxford English Dictionary (2018), s.v. “pretended.” www.oed.com(accessed 28 February 2018).
Roads Judith , “The Distinctiveness of Quaker Prose 1650–1699: A Corpus-based Enquiry,” PhD diss. (Birmingham: University of Birmingham, 2015). http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/5938/(accessed 28 February 2018).
Serjeantson Richard , “Proof and Persuasion,” in: Park Katharine & Daston Lorraine (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), vol. 3, 132–175.
Story Thomas , Reasons Why those of the People called Quakers, Challenged by George Keith, to Meet Him at Turner’s Hall the Eleventh of this Month called June, 1696: Refuse Their Appearance at His Peremptory Summons (London: 1696).
van Eemeren Frans H. , & Garssen Bart , “Controversy and Confrontation in Argumentative Discourse,” in: van Eemeren Frans & Garssen Bart (eds.), Controversy and Confrontation: Relating Controversy Analysis with Argumentation Theory (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2008), 1–26.
Wölffel Nathan , “George Keith,” Brief Lives: Biographies from Early Modernity (2013). http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/emforum/projects/brieflives/george_keith(accessed on 2 April 2017).
Wright Luella , “Literature and Education in Early Quakerism,” University of Iowa Studies 5/2 (1933), 5–60.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 350 | 109 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 193 | 2 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 28 | 3 | 2 |
This paper tests a proto-model of historical religious polemic discourse through a case study of a 1690s dispute between the schismatic former Quaker George Keith and Thomas Ellwood, a prominent Quaker representing the Quaker movement in England at that time. Thomas Gloning, Gerd Fritz, and others, suggest certain rhetorical strategies underlie functional and evaluative argumentation language typically employed. Findings contrast discourse elements common to the Keithian texts that do match some traditional characteristics, despite a superficial impression indicating otherwise, but show too where the model fails. An additional approach, not part of the traditional model, touches on linguistic politeness theory.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 350 | 109 | 8 |
Full Text Views | 193 | 2 | 2 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 28 | 3 | 2 |