Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 399–416 | Cite as

Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

  • David ZarefskyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Persuasive definitions – those that convey an attitude in the act of naming – are frequently employed in discourse and are a form of strategic maneuvering. The dynamics of persuasive definition are explored through brief case studies and an extended analysis of the use of the “war” metaphor in responding to terrorism after September 11, 2001. Examining persuasive definitions enables us to notice similarities and differences between strategic maneuvering in dialectical and in rhetorical argument, as well as differences between the role of strategic maneuvering in normatively ideal argument and in actually existing argument. This will avoid the double standard of comparing ideal dialectic with actual rhetoric, or vice versa. The results of the analysis suggest possibilities for a rapprochement between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argumentation.

Keywords

definition dialectic normative argument persuasive definition pragma-dialectics rhetoric universal audience 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Consigny, S. (2001). Gorgias: Sophist and Artist. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  2. Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Edelman, M. (1971). Politics as Symbolic Action. Chicago: MarkhamGoogle Scholar
  4. Eemeren F. H. van, P. Houtlosser (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar
  5. Osborn, M. (1986). Rhetorical depiction. In H. W. Simons, A. A. Aghazarian (eds.), Form, Genre, and the Study of Political Discourse (pp. 79–107). Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre Dame PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Sontag, S.: 2002, Real battles and empty metaphors. In New York Times, September 10 (p. A31)Google Scholar
  8. Stevenson, C. L. (1944). Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale Univ. PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Walton, Douglas N. n.d. Criticizing Mass Media Argumentation. Manuscript in preparationGoogle Scholar
  10. Zarefsky, D.: 1997, ‹Definitions’, in J. F. Klumpp (ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Proceedings of the 10 th Biennial NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, pp.␣1–11, National Communication Association, Annandale, VaGoogle Scholar
  11. Zarefsky, D. (2004). George W. Bush discovers rhetoric: September 20, 2001 and the U.S. response to terrorism. In M. J. Hyde (ed.), The Ethos of Rhetoric (pp. 136–155). Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Zarefsky, D. (2006). The ten rules of pragma-dialectics and validity argumentation. In P. Houtlosser, & A. van Rees (eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 313–323). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations