Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
