Recent work on language and institutions has highlighted the potential of rhetorical analysis for identifying and studying the taken-for-granted elements of institutions. While this work has generated insight into the performative effects of talking about an institution’s taken-for-granted assumptions, it has not yet focused on using rhetorical analysis to explore how these taken-for-granted assumptions might change. Our historical, inductive case study of debates between evangelists and traditionalists in the Church of England shows that interactions, particularly when these involve transitions between intrafield and interfield rhetoric in an inherently ambiguous context can result in emergent and unanticipated changes to an institution.
