Argumentation

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 57–77

The Passover Haggadah as Argument, Or Why Is This Text Different from Other Texts?

  • Alan Zemel

Abstract

In this paper, I demonstrate how the Passover Haggadah exploits certain features of conversational interaction in both the production formats of its texts and in its performance formats (or ways it indicates it should be performed) during the Passover Seder. Some conversational methods used include the use of dispreferred second pair parts which creates an impression that at least part of the Haggadah's text resembles a kind of conversational argument. Furthermore, as a recitable text, the Haggadah exploits the use of and changes in footings in a manner reminiscent of how reported speech is used in ordinary conversation to introduce participant roles and virtual participants with their own commitments, orientations and positions which may not represent those of the animators of the recited text. While the Haggadah is not an actual argument in conventional terms, it is a script of ritual texts organized according to a logic similar to the one by which certain kinds of conversational arguments are organized. Participants are able to animate participatory roles and assess the positions, orientations and commitments such roles represent in a manner that rehearses how such positions, orientations and commitments might be accomplished in actual argumentation.

Haggadah Jewish ritual footing sequential organizational conversational argumentation recitative reconstruction preference 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bauman, R.: 1992, 'Contextualization, Tradition, and the Dialogue of Genres: Icelandic Legends of the Kraftaskáld', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, C.: 1992, Ritual Theory Ritual Practice, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Byarin, D.: 1990, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  4. Bronstein, H. (ed.): 1984, A Passover Haggadah, Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Burke, K.: 1953, Counter-Statement, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Clayman, S.: 1992, 'Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-interview Discourse', in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  8. Elias, J. (ed.): 1977, The Haggadah: Passover Haggadah with Translation and a New Commentary Based on Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources, Mesorah Publications Ltd., New York.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, W. R.: 1987, Human Communication As Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value, and Action, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.Google Scholar
  10. Fredman, R. G.: 1981, The Passover Seder: Afikoman in Exile, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  11. Geertz, C.: 1980, Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
  12. Giddens, A.: 1984, The Constitution of Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  13. Giddens, A.: 1993, New Rules of Sociological Method, Second Edition, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  14. Glatzer, N. (ed.): 1989, The Passover Haggadah: Introduction and Commentary Based on the Studies of E. D. Goldschmidt, Schoken Books, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Goffman, E.: 1981, Forms of Talk, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Goodwin, C. and A. Duranti: 1992, 'Rethinking Context: an Introduction', in A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Grice, P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Heritage, J.: 1989, 'Current Developments in Conversation Analysis', in D. Roger and P. Bull (eds.), Conversation, Multilingual Matters Ltd., Clevedon.Google Scholar
  19. Iser, W.: 1978, The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  20. Iser, W.: 1980, 'The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach', in J. P. Tompkins (ed.), Reader-Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-structuralism, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, 'Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme', The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251-265.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1981, 'Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Conversation', Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 118-132.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1982, 'Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach', in R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983, 'Strategy and Structure in Conversational Influence Attempts', Communications Monographs 50, 285-304.Google Scholar
  25. Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1989, 'Building a Model of Conversational Argument', in B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O. Keefe and E. Wartella (eds.), Rethinking Communication Volume 2 Paradigm Exemplars, Sage Publications, Newbury Park.Google Scholar
  26. Kugel, J. L.: 1987, 'Torah', in A. A. Cohen and P. Mendes-Flohr (eds.), Contemporary Jewish Religious Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Lake, R.: 1990, 'The Implied Arguer', in D. C. Williams and M. D. Hazen (eds.), Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  28. Levinson, S.: 1985, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Lyons, J.: 1977, Semantics, Vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. MacIntyre, A.: 1984, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory, Second Edition, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  31. Mitchell, D. B.: 1994, 'Distinctions Between Everyday and Representation Communication', Communication Theory 4, 111-131Google Scholar
  32. O'Keefe, D. J.: 1977, 'Two Concepts of Argument', Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 121-128.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alan Zemel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Rhetoric and CommunicationTemple University???

Personalised recommendations