Persuasive dialogues in Shakespeares̓ dramatic work [Elektronische Ressource] / von Stefanie Boden

X5bost

Informations

• Publié par: friedrich-schiller-universitat_jena
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2004
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait

Persuasive Dialogues
in Shakespeare's Dramatic Work


Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
Doctor philosophiae (Dr.phil.)





















vorgelegt dem Rat der Philosophischen Fakultät
der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena

von Stefanie Boden
geboren am 18.11.1976 in Dresden














































Gutachter

1. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang G. Müller
2. Prof. Dr. Uwe Baumann

Tag des Kolloquiums: 14.06.2004 Table of Contents

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………… 1

2. Definitions of Dialogue……………………………………………………………….. 11
2.1. The Prevalent Interest in Dialogue………………………………………………….. 11
2.2. Distinction Between Dialogic Form and Quality……………………………………. 12
2.2.1. A Formal Definition of Dialogue……………………………………………… 12
2.2.2. A Qualitative Definition of Dialogue…………………………………………. 19
2.2.2.1. Encounter of Different Perspectives …………………………………….. 19
2.2.2.2. Mutual Perspective Taking……………………………………………… 21
2.2.2.3. Intersubjectivity…………………………………………………………. 23
2.3. Dialogue versus Monologue………………………………………………………… 26

3. The Concept of Persuasion……………………………………………………………. 29
3.1. A General Definition………………………………………………………………... 29
3.2. The Dual Structure of Persuasion…………………………………………………… 35
3.3. Persuasion and Ethics………………………………………………………………... 38
3.4. Towards a Dialogical View of Persuasion………………………………………….. 42

4. Persuasion in a Dialogic Context……………………………………………………… 46
4.1. The Monological Background of Persuasion……………………………………….. 46
4.2. Exordium……………………………………………………………………………. 51
4.2.1. Exordium Within Dialogue: Introduction of the Topic by the Persuader…….. 52
4.2.2. As Dialogue: Joint Introduction of the Topic…………………........ 58
4.3. Narratio and Argumentatio………………………………………………………….. 63
4.3.1. Passages Without Turn-Taking……………………………………………….. 65
4.3.1.1. Dialogical Elements in Passages Without Turn-Taking………............... 65
4.3.1.1.(a) Emphatic Address……………………………................................... 65
4.3.1.1.(b) The Pretence of Two Perspectives………………………….............. 71
4.3.1.2. Nonverbal Dialogue…………………………………………................... 76
4.3.2. Passages With Turn-Taking…………………………………………………… 77
4.3.2.1. Persuadee as Commentator……………………………………………… 78
4.3.2.1.(a) The Persuadee’s Utterances as Feedback…………………………… 78
4.3.2.1.(b) Demands and Requests for Arguments…………………................... 81
4.3.2.2. Persuasive Arguments Distributed in Dialogue…………………………. 84
4.3.2.2.(a) The Persuadee’s Arguments as Contributions to the Persuasion……. 84
4.3.2.2.(b) The Persuadee’s Participation in the Generation of Arguments…….. 86
4.4. Conclusio…………………………………………………………………………….. 90
4.4.1. Conclusio Without Turn-Taking………………………………………………. 91
4.4.2. Call to Action Within Dialogue……………………………………………….. 93
4.4.3. Call to Action As Dialogue……………………………………………………. 97
4.5. The Range of Forms in Dialogic Persuasion………………………………………… 104

5. A Qualitative Analysis of Shakespeare’s Persuasive Dialogues………………………. 109
5.1. Preliminary Re marks………………………………………………………………… 109
5.2. Qualitative Differences in Passages Without Turn-Taking………………………….. 111
5.2.1. A Qualitative Reconsideration of Passages Without Turn-Taking……………. 113
5.2.1.1. Emphatic Address………………………………………………………... 113
5.2.1.2. The Pretence of Two Perspectives………………………………………..115
5.2.1.3. Nonverbal Dialogue……………………………………………………… 119 5.2.2. A Comparative Case Study……………………………………………………. 121
5.2.3. The Question of the Persuadee’s Responsibility……………………………… 127
5.3. Persuasion Within Dialogue…………………………………………………………. 132
5.3.1. Methodological Preliminaries…………………………………………………. 132
5.3.2. The Initiation of Elements of the Persuasion………………………………….. 136
5.3.2.1. Active Initiation by the Persuadee……………………………………….. 137
5.3.2.1.(a) Novelty………………………………………………………………. 137
5.3.2.1.(b) ‘Free’ Versus ‘Conditioned’ Initiatives……………………………... 140
5.3.2.1.(c) The Persuadee’s Awareness…………………………………………. 143
5.3.2.2. Utilization of the Persuadee’s Utterances………………………………... 147
5.3.2.2.(a) Utilization of Opportune Utterances………………………………… 148
5.3.2.2.(b) Utilization of ‘Neutral’ Utterances………………………………….. 150
5.3.2.2.(c) Utilization of Unfavourable Utterances……………………………... 153
5.3.2.3. Shared Responsibility……………………………………………………. 157
5.3.2.4. Prevention or Delaying of Elements of the Persuasion………………….. 160
5.3.3. Responses to Parts of the Persuasion………………………………………….. 164
5.3.3.1. Acceptance of an Offered Perspective……………………………………165
5.3.3.1.(a) Uncritical Versus Restrained Agreement……………………………. 165
5.3.3.1.(b) Methods of Increasing the Likelihood of Agreement……………….. 173
5.3.3.2. Rejection of an Offered Perspective……………………………………... 177
5.3.3.2.(a) Plain Rejections……………………………………………………… 178
5.3.3.2.(b) Elaborate, Substantiated Re jections…………………………………. 181
5.3.3.2.(c) Elaborate, Non-Substantiated Rejections……………………………. 187
5.3.3.3. Intended Rejection of a Perspective……………………………………... 191
5.3.4. Summary………………………………………………………………………. 195
5.4. Persuasion As Dialogue………………………………………………………………198
5.4.1. Independent Contributions Versus Manipulation……………………………... 198
5.4.2. Independent Contributions by the Persuadee………………………………….. 202
5.4.3. Contributions Provoked by the Persuader……………………………………... 212
5.4.3.1. Guiding Utterances………………………………………………………. 212
5.4.3.1.(a) Overt Manipulation………………………………………………….. 212
5.4.3.1.(b) Covert Manipulation………………………………………………… 217
5.4.3.2. Deception………………………………………………………………... 227
5.4.3.2.(a) Simulatio – Manipulation by False Information
as Direct Deception…………………………………………………. 230
5.4.3.2.(b) Indirect Deception by Dissimulatio…………………………………. 234
5.4.4. Summary………………………………………………………………………. 238

6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………….. 240
6.1. Dialogic and Monologic Influences in Shakespeare’s Persuasive Dialogues………. 240
6.2. The Persuadee as Victim and Co-Creator of the Persuasion………………………… 243
6.3. Summarizing Comparison…………………………………………………………… 247

References………………………………………………………………………………... 255

Zusammenfassung………………………………………………………………………... i 1. Introduction
Shakespeare's plays present us with a "universe of dialogues" ("ein Universum
1der Dialoge" ), and the immense variety of dramatic dialogues in his works is indeed
astonishing. Within this universe, the persuasive dialogue is but one form, which,
though it represents but a small number of Shakespeare's dialogues, provides some of
his most memorable scenes. Despite his indisputably exceptional position as a
playwright, Shakespeare is also symptomatic of his time which has frequently been
characterized as a dialogic period or, more specifically, as an age "giving priority to the
2mode of dialogic scepticism over monological dogmatism" . Since dialogue is a
3constitutive element of drama, and drama is "the outstanding literary genre of the age" ,
Shakespeare's universe of dialogues might be seen as one indication of the priority
which dialogue had over monologue in the Renaissance. The 'dialogic scepticism'
achieving pre-eminence in the Renaissance is unquestionably related to the developing
focus on the individual which is also highly characteristic of the age. Surely, it is quite
significant in this context that Bloom ascribes the invention of the "inner self" and of
4"the human as we know it" to Shakespeare's dramatic art.
Persuasion, which is the original and thus perhaps the most authentic province of
rhetoric, has frequently been (mis-)understood as an essentially one-sided process. This
has cultural and historical reasons, since in the Renaissance the power of rhetoric was
commonly thought to be virtually unlimited. As Vickers points out, it was an "idea
5almost universal throughout the Renaissance, that rhetoric cannot be resisted." The
rhetorician was seen as the "emperour of mens minds" (Henry Peacham) and rhetoric
6itself "as a matter of power and control, not debate and dialogue" . However, as Müller
demonstrates, rhetoric is widely used in Renaissance drama in a genuinely dialogic
7manner, for example when rhetorical figures serve as turn-taking devices. What may
have inspired the rather narrow view of rhetoric as a monological instrument, is its close

1 Müller, Wolfgang G., "Zur literarischen Gesprächskultur in der englischen Renaissance: Die Funktion
von Tropen und Figuren im Dialog", Bodo Guthmüller (ed.), Wolfenbütteler Renaissance-Mitteilungen,
25, 2001, 5.