ATLAS OF LANGUAGE

AT-HAR9-0001 · ATLAS 260

Antirrhesis

Explicit rejection of a preceding claim or position.

Part of the subject path Rhetoric and Style

Why is this entry in the Atlas?

F · Figure / procedure R1 · Distinct contribution to understanding

Antirrhesis identifies explicit rejection of an antecedent claim as a responsive act, leaving the adequacy of its grounds to further assessment. Anticategoria returns an accusation and is therefore a more specific counteract than explicit rejection.

Colours and admission grounds

The rectangular label identifies the entry function: F – linguistic figure or procedure; A – analytical concept; G – foundational concept; E – selected concrete case. The rounded badge indicates the admission ground: R1 – distinctive contribution; R2 – necessary foundation; R3 – justified illustrative case. This editorial rationale explains the current selection rather than claiming an undocumented original selection history.

Explanation

Antirrhesis explicitly rejects a preceding claim or position and makes contradiction visible as a speech act in its own right. It does more than correct a fact: it marks a boundary of what can be accepted, justified, or morally tolerated. Rejection may clarify discourse and make marginalised opposition audible; without reasons, it may close exchange just as abruptly. Analysis identifies the rejected proposition, determines the scope and strength of negation, and follows the subsequent justification. It also asks whether the person, wording, or substantive claim is denied and whether an alternative position is opened.

Movement of thought

1. The proposition being rejected is reconstructed apart from speaker, tone, and surrounding polemic. 2. Negation markers and prosody determine whether an aspect, inference, or whole position is denied. 3. The reason is tested for evidence, norm, counterexample, or a mere gesture of authority. 4. Power relations and speaking rights show whether rejection opens dissent or terminates conversation. 5. An alternative position is formulated so that what should remain after the no becomes explicit.

Scientific use case

Argumentation theory and research on conversation, protest, courts, and parliaments study antirrhesis through scope of negation and subsequent talk. Sequential analysis distinguishes reasoned dissent from authoritative dismissal and correction alone.

Example

After “A frequently used path is therefore a just path,” comes: “No: frequency proves habituation, not justice.” The rejection supplies its opposing criterion at the same time.

Counterexample

A factual correction, a bare no, or every opposing opinion is not necessarily antirrhesis. The preceding position must be expressly marked as a claim to be rejected.

Distinction

Distinguish antirrhesis from apodioxis, antikategoria, epitimesis, and simple negation. Antirrhesis explicitly rejects a claim; apodioxis often dismisses indignantly, while antikategoria responds with counter-accusation.

Effect on thought and perception

Antirrhesis makes disagreement unmistakable, interrupts apparent consensus, and protects argumentative boundaries. It may also intensify polarisation or terminate necessary exchange through categorical form.

Resonance

An advancing line of assertion encounters a clearly placed counter-impulse. Their collision and any supporting reason create a new field in which both positions become examinable.

Cite this entry

Reich, Michael (Hrsg./ed.): „Antirrhesis“. Atlas der Sprache, AT-HAR9-0001. ATLAS 260, data model 1.6.0. https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-HAR9-0001

https://atlasoflanguage.com/concept/AT-HAR9-0001

The address remains stable; editorial content may evolve. Editorial reading state: 2026-10-15. Include your access date for precise references.

Historical background

Peacham’s 1593 antirrhesis rejects someone’s authority, opinion or statement because the speaker regards it as erroneous or morally unacceptable. His treatment is strongly framed by religious controversy, and the Atlas must distinguish that historical setting from a general method for deciding truth. The useful structural point is that rejection may be directed at an assertion or at the authority invoked for it. Those targets are not identical: questioning an authority does not by itself refute every proposition associated with it. Peacham’s caution acknowledges that the same forceful device can be used against what he regards as truth. The historical account therefore exposes a problem rather than solving it through the figure’s name. An explicit refusal may protect an argument from a false premise, or may exclude a claim without examining it. The present profile can use this witness to ask what is rejected and what reasons warrant the rejection. It establishes an English rhetorical occurrence by 1593, not an independently verified date of coinage.

How conceptual history changes the analysis

Antirrhesis rejects a statement or an authority; rhetorical decisiveness does not replace substantive testing or separate justification at the two levels.

References for the historical section

  • Henry Peacham, The Garden of Eloquence (1593), Perseus transcription · Schemates Rhetorical: Antirrhesis, including use and caution where present

    The relevant transcription was read; it has not been collated against a 1593 page image. This dates a documented witness, not the first coinage. Historical moral, social and religious judgements are attributed to Peacham, not adopted as current knowledge.

Historical source evidence and Atlas applications remain separate; this import does not assert new first attestations or a fresh exhaustive source verification.