Abstract
In the pragma-dialectical research program, strategic maneuvering refers to processes of seeking rhetorical advantage while meeting one’s dialectical obligations. One principal means of strategic maneuvering is the use of persuasive definitions, those in which connotations are changed while keeping the denotation constant, or vice-versa. Brief examples and an extended case study (the labeling of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks as “war”) demonstrate that strategic maneuvering functions analogously, if not identically, in dialectic and rhetoric.
This essay, based on a lecture at the University of Amsterdam, was originally published in Argumentation, 20 (2006), 399–416, published by Springer, and is reprinted by permission.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This essay was originally prepared in the fall of 2006.
References
Consigny, S. 2001. Gorgias: Sophist and artist. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Edelman, M. 1964. The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Edelman, M. 1971. Politics as symbolic action. Chicago: Markham.
Osborn, M. 1986. Rhetorical depiction. In Form, genre, and the study of political discourse, ed. H.W. Simons and A.A. Aghazarian, 79–107. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Perelman, Ch., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Originally published in French in 1958.)
Sontag, S. 2002. Real battles and empty metaphors. New York Times, September 10, p. A31.
Stevenson, C.L. 1944. Ethics and language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Walton, D.N. 2007. Media argumentation: Dialectic, persuasion, and rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zarefsky, D. 1998. Definitions. In Argument in a time of change: Proceedings of the 10th biennial NCA/AFA summer conference on argumentation, ed. J.F. Klumpp, 1–11. Annandale: National Communication Association. (Reprinted in this volume, Chap. 10.)
Zarefsky, D. 2004. George W. Bush discovers rhetoric: September 20, 2001 and the U.S. response to terrorism. In The ethos of rhetoric, ed. M.J. Hyde, 136–155. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Zarefsky, D. 2006. The ten rules of pragma-dialectics and validity in argumentation. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 313–323. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zarefsky, D. (2014). Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric. In: Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 24. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-05484-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-05485-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)