{"id":4876,"date":"2021-10-20T10:04:43","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T08:04:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4876"},"modified":"2025-04-01T12:13:03","modified_gmt":"2025-04-01T10:13:03","slug":"destruction-of-speech-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/destruction-of-speech-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Destruction of Speech"},"content":{"rendered":"

DESTRUCTION OF SPEECH<\/span><\/h1>\n

The argumentative forms of rebuttal are based on what is said<\/em>, that is, on a critical examination of the content of the rejected speech, of its relevance to the current issue, or on considerations related to the person who holds it. Good or bad, the refutations<\/a> are explicitly argued.
\nArgumentative discourse, like any discourse, can be attacked, either by such an argued refutative discourse or by more radical, linguistic or non-linguistic coups. Speech destruction<\/em> seeks to impair, nullify, exclude, the targeted speech; to make nonsense of what it says, to render it devoid of substance; to make it repulsive \u2014 and, above all, to make it harmless, to ensure that it will have no practical effect on the group.<\/p>\n

1. Discourse destruction and freedom of expression<\/span><\/h2>\n

In view of their material exclusion from the public sphere, controversial beliefs and proposals can be neutralized by the legal prohibition of their expression, and the imprisonment of their proponents. This can be seen as an attack on freedom of expression; but many democratic countries agree to legislate against hate speech as an incitement to crime.
\nFreedom of expression can also be hampered by popular demonstrations, where public expression is made inaudible, by shouting, blowing horns, etc.<\/p>\n

2. Destruction by interactional behavior<\/span><\/h2>\n

In ordinary face-to-face situations, discourse can be destroyed by nonverbal interactional maneuvers, the most radical of which is the refusal to listen, and let others listen to the discourse of others. Agreement, which is manifested through various phenomena of ratification, and, conversely, a simple lack of ratification, the inertia of the partner, can cause the speaker to withdraw her speech, S. Disagreement<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The following interaction takes place in a high school physics lab. The lesson is on the concept of force, and uses a small apparatus, a stone hanging from a gallows.[1]<\/a> The students work in pairs, and we’ll follow students F<\/strong> and G<\/strong>. The question asked by the teacher is:<\/p>\n

What are the objects acting on the stone?<\/span><\/p>\n

The two students look at the teacher in confusion. Then, still addressing the class, she adds:<\/p>\n

Well, I took an object in the most general sense that is to say, anything that can act on the stone er: visibly or invisibly if – well\\<\/span><\/p>\n

Then, Student F<\/strong> immediately answers the teacher’s question, by turning to his partner:<\/p>\n

Well the air\/ the air\/ … the air it acts the air when you do that the air\\<\/span><\/p>\n

After a pause, F<\/strong> resumes his argumentation, by vigorously waving his arm up \u2013 down \u2013 up, while intensely addressing his partner (simplified transcription):<\/p>\n

If you do that there will be air afterwards because you know when you make a fast movement like that\\ it’s the same there’s the air\\ I’m sure\\ but here for now we don’t answer that yet but\/<\/span><\/p>\n

Then student G<\/strong>, playing with the stone, says:<\/p>\n

There is attraction\\<\/span><\/p>\n

F<\/strong>‘s argument is perfectly in line with Toulmin’s model of argument. The claim is \u201cthe air [acts on the rock]<\/em>\u201d. It is supported by an appeal to analogy, \u201cit is the same<\/em>\u201d, which refers to an ad hoc gesture of argumentation, that mimics and emphasizes some self-evident fact. The conclusion is duly emphatically modalized, \u201cI am sure\u00a0\u00bb<\/em> \u2014 and immediately withdrawn: \u201cbut for now we are not answering that yet<\/em>\u201d. In view of the strongly asserted argument, this withdrawal is quite unexpected. It is understandable only in view of the interactional behavior of the interlocutor partner G<\/strong>, who stares at the stone and gives no sign of ratification throughout, not even signaling that he is listening to F<\/strong>‘s argument.
\n<\/strong>This attitude should not be interpreted as contempt for his partner, <\/strong>with whom he gets along very well, as the following fully collaborative exchange shows.<\/p>\n

3. Rejecting the expression<\/span><\/h2>\n

An embarrassing discourse can be destroyed by a criticism that focuses upon the style and expression<\/em> of the opponent without considering the argument itself. The response \u201cI don’t agree<\/em>\u201d actually demonstrates a high level of cooperation.
\nAncient rhetoric identifies a trio of major linguistic qualities of discourse, quality<\/em> of language, clarity<\/em> and vividness<\/em> of expression (latinitas<\/em>, perspicuitas<\/em> and ornatus <\/em>respectively). Destructive strategies can develop from each of these points.<\/p>\n

3.1 Quality of Language<\/strong> <\/span><\/h3>\n

\u201cYou are hardly understandable, you don’t even know the language you pretend to speak, you use dialect expressions you should try to speak classical Syldavian<\/em>\u201d. In a polemical situation, the opponent may reject a discourse a priori<\/em> on the basis of its grammatical errors. It would be wrong to think that these strategies are marginal or ineffective:<\/p>\n

In an uncertain spelling, Mrs. X challenges the evaluation of her linguistic skills by the jury of the competition.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ms. X failed her language proficiency test. Now, she disputes the jury’s decision, and the jury responds by mentioning the \u201cuncertain spelling\u201d in her complaint letter. Strictly speaking, these misspellings do not prove that her exam paper was also misspelled, but they can certainly be used as an indication. In any case it justifies a charge of negligence, which shows a disregard for the jury, which is sufficient to devalue the importance of her complaint.<\/p>\n

3.2 Clarity and vividness of expression <\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Similarly, devastating strategies appeal to the lack of clarity of expression: \u201cthe presentation was unclear and confusing<\/em>\u201d, or its vividness \u201cso boring!<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

Of course, it is\u00a0 better for an argumentative speech to be grammatically correct, clear and interesting. On the other hand, it is human nature to consider correct, clear, and interesting the those speeches with which we agree. This is not just a psychological or bad faith issue; it has a cognitive relevance. The discourse with which one agrees is better known; its deep principles are fully accepted, it is easier to recover the ellipses and missing links; its variations are better tolerated; it is better memorized, etc. When it comes to an opponent’s discourse, it is relatively natural to translate the corresponding difficulties as speech defects, and to conclude by denying that the minimum conditions for mutual understanding are met.<\/p>\n

Making fun and puns out of the opponent’s discourse, is a popular way to get rid of the problems and arguments defended S. Laughter and Seriousness<\/a>; Orientation Reversal<\/a><\/p>\n

4. Ignoring the argumentative details<\/span><\/h2>\n

A class of refutative maneuvers refers to the opponent’s discourse without considering its argumentative details, e.g.:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Declaring the discourse sub-argumentative<\/em>, <\/strong>unworthy of a refutation, S. Dismissal.<\/a>
\n<\/strong>\u2014\u00a0Misrepresenting the argument<\/em>, S. Resumption of speech.<\/a><\/p>\n

5. Disqualifying the Arguer<\/span><\/h2>\n

Personal<\/em>\u00a0attacks<\/em><\/a> against the speaker set aside the argument and try to disqualify the arguer.<\/strong><\/p>\n

For other forms on the verge of destruction<\/em> and propositional refutation<\/em>, <\/strong>S. Refutation<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Example taken from the VISA database: https:\/\/visa-video.ens-lyon.fr\/visa-web\/<\/a> (09-20-2017).<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

DESTRUCTION OF SPEECH The argumentative forms of rebuttal are based on what is said, that is, on a critical examination of the content of the rejected speech, of its relevance to the current issue, or on considerations related to the person who holds it. Good or bad, the refutations are explicitly argued. Argumentative discourse, like […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4876","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4876"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4876\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13916,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4876\/revisions\/13916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}