Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

David Zarefsky

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11

Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

David Zarefsky^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Communication Studies

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter

1 Scopus citations

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.

Original language	English (US)
Title of host publication	Argumentation Library
Publisher	Springer Nature
Pages	129-143
Number of pages	15
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11
State	Published - 2014

Publication series

Name	Argumentation Library
Volume	24
ISSN (Print)	1566-7650
ISSN (Electronic)	2215-1907

Keywords

Dialectic
Framing
Persuasive definition
Pragma-dialectics
Strategic maneuvering
Terrorism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Law
Philosophy
Linguistics and Language
Language and Linguistics

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11

Cite this

@inbook{3431cf983ce34ff9bcc792bae1664632,

title = "Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric",

abstract = "In the pragma-dialectical research program, strategic maneuvering refers to processes of seeking rhetorical advantage while meeting one{\textquoteright}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.",

keywords = "Dialectic, Framing, Persuasive definition, Pragma-dialectics, Strategic maneuvering, Terrorism",

author = "David Zarefsky",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2014, Springer International Publishing Switzerland.",

year = "2014",

doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11",

language = "English (US)",

series = "Argumentation Library",

publisher = "Springer Nature",

pages = "129--143",

booktitle = "Argumentation Library",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions

T2 - Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

AU - Zarefsky, David

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Dialectic

KW - Framing

KW - Persuasive definition

KW - Pragma-dialectics

KW - Strategic maneuvering

KW - Terrorism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85094972396&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85094972396&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8_11

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:85094972396

T3 - Argumentation Library

SP - 129

EP - 143

BT - Argumentation Library

PB - Springer Nature

ER -

Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric

Abstract

Publication series

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this