The Argumentative Structure of Persuasive Definitions

Article

Abstract

In this paper we present an analysis of persuasive definition based on argumentation schemes. Using the medieval notion of differentia and the traditional approach to topics, we explain the persuasiveness of emotive terms in persuasive definitions by applying the argumentation schemes for argument from classification and argument from values. Persuasive definitions, we hold, are persuasive because their goal is to modify the emotive meaning denotation of a persuasive term in a way that contains an implicit argument from values. However, our theory is different from Stevenson’s, a positivistic view that sees emotive meaning as subjective, and defines it as a behavioral effect. Our proposal is to treat the persuasiveness produced by the use of emotive words and persuasive definitions as due to implicit arguments that an interlocutor may not be aware of. We use congruence theory to provide the linguistic framework for connecting a term with the function it is supposed to play in a text. Our account allows us to distinguish between conflicts of values and conflicts of classifications.

Keywords

Values Emotive words Persuasion Approval Condemnation Argument from values Definitions 

References

  1. Aberdein, A (2000) Persuasive definition. In Tindale CW, Hansen HV, Sveda E (eds) Argumentation at the century’s turn, OSSA (Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation) Proceedings. CD ROMGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle (1851) On rhetoric. Translated by T. Buckley. Henry G. Bohn, London (UK)Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle (1939) Topica. Translated by E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle (1985) Nicomachean ethics. Translated by Terence Irwin. Hackett, Indianapolis, Ind.Google Scholar
  5. Baier K (1965) The moral point of view. abridged and rev. ed. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bench-Capon T (2003a) Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J Log Comput 13:429–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bench-Capon T (2003b) Agreeing to differ: modelling persuasive dialogue between parties without a consensus about values. Informal Logic 22:231–245Google Scholar
  8. Bigi S (2006) Keywords in argumentative texts and their persuasive power. Paper for the ISSA conferenceGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown DG (1955) Evaluative inference. Philosophy 30(114):214–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burgess-Jackson K (1995) Rape and persuasive definition. Can J Philos 25:415–454Google Scholar
  11. Cigada S (2006) Connectif et relation entre locuteurs. In: Gobber G, Gatti MC, Cigada S (eds) Sýndesmoi. Vita e Pensiero, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  12. Damasio A (1994) L’errore di Cartesio. Aldelphi, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  13. Damasio A (2000) The feeling of what happens. Vintage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Ducrot O (1983) L’Argumentation dans la langue. Mardaga, BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducrot O (1993) Dire et ne pas Dire. Minuit, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Ducrot O, Anscombre J-C (1986) Argumentativité et informativité. In: Meyer M (ed) De la métaphysique à la rhétorique. Bruxelles, Editions de L’Université de BruxellesGoogle Scholar
  17. Eco U (1975) Trattato di semiotica generale. Bompiani, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  18. Green-Pedersen NJ (1984) The tradition of topics in the Middle Age. Philosophia, Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallden S (1960) True love, true humour and true religion: a semantic study. Gleerlup, LundGoogle Scholar
  20. Hare R (1952) The language of morals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Manicas P, Kruger A (1968) Essentials of logic. American Book, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Plantin C (2004) On the inseparability of reason and emotion in argumentation. In: Bollowe J, Weigand E (eds) Emotions in dialogic interaction. Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 265–276Google Scholar
  23. Quintilian MF (1996) Institutio oratoria. Translated by H. E. Butler. Cambridge, Mass, Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Rigotti E (2005a) Towards a typology of manipulative processes. In: de Saussure L, Schulz P (eds) New perspectives on manipulation and ideologies: theoretical aspects. Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  25. Rigotti E (2005b) Congruity theory and argumentation. Stud Commun Sci 75–96Google Scholar
  26. Rigotti E, Rocci A (2006) Denotation vs. connotation. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics second edition (pp. 1–9). ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  27. Rocci A (2005) Connective predicated in dialogic and monologic argumentation. Stud Commun Sci 97–118Google Scholar
  28. Schiappa E (2003) Defining reality: definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Solomon R (2003) Not passion’s slave. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Stevenson CL (1937) The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind 46:14–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevenson CL (1938) Persuasive definitions. Mind 47:331–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stevenson CL (1944) Ethics and language. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  33. Stump E (1989) Dialectic and its place in the development of medieval logic. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.YGoogle Scholar
  34. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  35. Vendler Z (1964) The grammar of goodness. Philos Rev 72(4):446–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Walton D (2003) Ethical argumentation. Lexington, Lanham, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  37. Walton D (2005) Deceptive arguments containing persuasive language and persuasive definitions. Argumentation 19:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton D (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Walton D, Macagno F (2008). Rhetorical argumentation using emotive words, in pressGoogle Scholar
  40. Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Welsh P (1957) On the nature of inference. Philos Rev 66(4):509–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Research on Reasoning, Argumentation and RhetoricUniversity of WindsorOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations