Cover not available
Part of
Unlocking the History of English: Pragmatics, prescriptivism and text types
Edited by Luisella Caon, Moragh S. Gordon and Thijs Porck
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 364] 2024
► pp. 86–100

A manipulative technique in a congressional debate

A case study from 1789

| Tampere University,
| Tampere University,
This article examines a debate in the United States House of Representatives in 1789 and presents a case study of ad socordiam, which is shown to be an informal fallacy in the language of politics. This fallacy is based on inferences about covert intentions of speakers, depending in part on the level of the hearer’s epistemic vigilance. The study shows how an inference about a speaker’s intention can be substantiated on the basis of evidence even in the case of a historical debate. The present study advocates a view of pragmatics and discourse analysis that regards inferences about covert intentions as a legitimate object of investigation to provide a fuller picture of political debates involving deep disagreements and manipulation.
Keywords: ad socordiam, covert intentions, deceptive communication, James Jackson, Bill of Rights
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.An argument by James Jackson in the debate of June 8, 1789
  • 3.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.364.04rud
References (38)
References
Banning, L. 1995. The sacred fire of liberty: James Madison and the founding of the federal republic. Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1824/1962. The handbook of political fallacies, rev. edn. by H. A. Larrabee. Harper Torchbooks. (Original work published in 1824)Google Scholar
Beville, A. 2021. An infinite and endless liar: Paroles as a case study of the pragmatics of lying in Shakespeare. Linguæ &-Rivista di lingue e culture modern 20(2). 79–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickford, C. 1999. Throwing open the doors: The first federal Congress and the eighteenth-century media. In K. Bowling, & D. Kennon (eds.), Inventing Congress: Origins and establishment of the first federal congress, 166–190. Published for the United States Capitol Historical Society by Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
Bowling, K. 1990. Politics in the first congress. Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Copi, I. & K. Burgess-Jackson. 1995. Informal logic, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Curtis, M. 2000. Free speech, “the people’s darling privilege”: Struggles for freedom of expression in American history. Duke University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debates 1834 = The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, with an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All the Laws of a Public Nature, vol. 1. Compiled from authentic materials by Joseph Gales, Sr. 1834. Gales and Seaton.Google Scholar
DenBoer, G. (ed.). 1984. The documentary history of the first federal elections 1788–1790, vol. 2. University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Dynel, M. 2020. To say the least: Where deceptively withholding information ends and lying begins. Topics in Cognitive Science 12. 555–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elkins, S. & McKitrick, E. 1993. The age of federalism: The early American Republic, 1788–1800. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fallis, D. 2018. Lying and omissions. In J. Meibauer (ed.), The Oxford handbook of lying, 183–192. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franke, M., G. Dulcinati & N. Pouscalo. 2020. Strategies of deception: Under-informativity, uninformativity, and lies – misleading with different kinds of implicature. Topics in Cognitive Science 12. 583–607. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. 1999. Intentions in the experience of meaning. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics. Volume 3: Speech acts, 41–58. Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, A. 1990. Research on conflict talk: Antecedents, resources, findings, directions. In A. Grimshaw (ed.), Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 280–324. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, H. 2020. Fallacies. In E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, rev. edn. [URL]
Horn, L. 2017a. Telling it slant: Toward a taxonomy of deception. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein (eds.), The pragmatic turn in law: Inference and interpretation in legal discourse, 25–55. de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. What lies beyond: Untangling the web. In R. Giora & M. Haugh (eds.), Doing pragmatics interculturally: Cognitive, philosophical, and sociopragmatic perspectives, 151–174. de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ketcham, R. 1971/1990. James Madison. A biography. University Press of Virginia. (Original work published 1971)Google Scholar
Madison, J. 1840/1966. Notes on the debates in the federal convention of 1787 reported by James Madison. With an introduction by A. Koch. Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1840)Google Scholar
Maillat, D. & S. Oswald. 2009. Defining manipulative discourse: The pragmatics of cognitive illusions. International Journal of Pragmatics 1. 348–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nowak, J. & R. Rotunda. 1995. Constitutional law, 5th edn. West Publishing.Google Scholar
Oswald, S., D. Maillat & L. de Saussure. 2016. Deceptive and uncooperative verbal communication. In A. Rocci & L. de Saussure (eds.), Verbal communication, 509–534. de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
OED = Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. 1989. OED online. Oxford University Press. [URL]
Rudanko, J. 2005. The fallacy of ad socordiam and two types of speaker intentions: A case study from the first congressional debate on the Bill of Rights in 1789. Journal of Pragmatics 37. 723–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Aggravated impoliteness and two types of speaker intentions in two episodes of Shakespeare’s Timon of Athens. Journal of Pragmatics 38. 825–841. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Discourses of freedom of speech: From the enactment of the Bill of Rights to the Sedition Act of 1918. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Towards characterizing a type of aggravated impoliteness with examples from Timon of Athens. Language and Literature 26(1). 3–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021. Fallacies and free speech: Selected discourses in early America. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, J. & P. Rickman. 2022. Manipulative fallacies in early America: Studies on selected congressional debates 1789 to 1799. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, L. 2005. Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics: Preliminary hypotheses. In P. Schulz & L. de Saussure (eds.), Manipulation and ideologies in the twentieth century: Discourse, language, mind, 113–145. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., F. Clément, C. Heinz, O. Mascaro, H. Mercier, G. Origgi & D. Wilson. 2010. Epistemic vigilance. Mind and Language 25(4). 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. & R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vincent, J. & C. Castelfranchi. 1981. On the art of deception: How to lie while saying the truth. In H. Parret, M. Sbizá & J. Verschuren (eds.), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics. Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, 740–777. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
2015. Goal-based reasoning for argumentation. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar