468013244 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code DS 2 GE 15 9789027290823 06 10.1075/ds.2 00 EA E133 10 01 JB code DS 02 JB code 1875-1792 02 2.00 01 02 Dialogue Studies Dialogue Studies 01 01 Dialogue and Rhetoric Dialogue and Rhetoric 1 B01 01 JB code 753096973 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 01 eng 11 332 03 03 xiv 03 00 316 03 24 JB code COMM.CGEN Communication Studies 24 JB code LIN.DIAL Dialogue studies 24 JB code LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB code PHIL.GEN Philosophy 24 JB code LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 10 LAN009000 12 CFG 01 06 03 00 The volume deals with the relationship between dialogue and rhetoric. The actual state of the art in dialogue analysis is characterized by a tendency to overcome the distinction between competence and performance and to combine components from both sides of the dichotomy, in a way which includes rules as well as inferences. The same is true of rhetoric: the guidelines proposed here no longer state that rationality and persuasion are mutually exclusive but suggest that they interact in what might be called the ‘mixed game’. The concept of a dialogic rhetoric thus poses the question of how to integrate the different voices. Part I of the volume assembles several ‘rhetorical paradigms’ which are applied to real-life performance. Part II on ‘rhetoric in the mixed game’ contains a selection of papers which illustrate the interaction of various components. The Round Table discussion in Part III brings proponents of different paradigms face to face with each other and shows how they justify their own positions and present arguments against rival paradigms. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/ds.2.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027210197.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027210197.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/ds.2.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/ds.2.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 JB code ds.2.01wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.01wei ix xiv 6 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices 1 A01 01 JB code 194100725 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand 01 01 JB code ds.2.02par 06 10.1075/ds.2.02par 1 1 1 Section header 2 01 04 Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms 01 01 JB code ds.2.03wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.03wei 3 21 19 Article 3 01 04 Rhetoric in the Mixed Game Rhetoric in the Mixed Game 1 A01 01 JB code 342100726 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 01 01 JB code ds.2.04coo 06 10.1075/ds.2.04coo 23 37 15 Article 4 01 04 The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism 1 A01 01 JB code 313100727 François Cooren Cooren, François François Cooren University of Montréal 01 01 JB code ds.2.05cis 06 10.1075/ds.2.05cis 39 53 15 Article 5 01 04 Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting 1 A01 01 JB code 1100728 Kenneth N. Cissna Cissna, Kenneth N. Kenneth N. Cissna University of South Florida 2 A01 01 JB code 55100729 Rob Anderson Anderson, Rob Rob Anderson Saint Louis University 01 01 JB code ds.2.06cra 06 10.1075/ds.2.06cra 55 67 13 Article 6 01 04 The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events 1 A01 01 JB code 165100730 Robert T. Craig Craig, Robert T. Robert T. Craig University of Colorado at Boulder 01 01 JB code ds.2.07let 06 10.1075/ds.2.07let 69 81 13 Article 7 01 04 Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? 1 A01 01 JB code 267100731 Alain Létourneau Létourneau, Alain Alain Létourneau University of Sherbrooke 01 01 JB code ds.2.08emm 06 10.1075/ds.2.08emm 83 93 11 Article 8 01 04 Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility 1 A01 01 JB code 789100732 Barbara A. Emmel Emmel, Barbara A. Barbara A. Emmel University of Münster 01 01 JB code ds.2.09teu 06 10.1075/ds.2.09teu 95 118 24 Article 9 01 04 What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin 1 A01 01 JB code 982100733 Wolfgang Teubert Teubert, Wolfgang Wolfgang Teubert University of Birmingham 01 01 JB code ds.2.10cat 06 10.1075/ds.2.10cat 119 131 13 Article 10 01 04 Logical and rhetorical rules of debate Logical and rhetorical rules of debate 1 A01 01 JB code 78100734 Adelino Cattani Cattani, Adelino Adelino Cattani University of Padua 01 01 JB code ds.2.11eem 06 10.1075/ds.2.11eem 133 151 19 Article 11 01 04 Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring 1 A01 01 JB code 1100735 Frans H. Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. Frans H. Eemeren University of Amsterdam 2 A01 01 JB code 997100736 Peter Houtlosser Houtlosser, Peter Peter Houtlosser University of Amsterdam 01 01 JB code ds.2.12par 06 10.1075/ds.2.12par 153 153 1 Section header 12 01 04 Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games 01 01 JB code ds.2.13cho 06 10.1075/ds.2.13cho 155 169 15 Article 13 01 04 Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' 1 A01 01 JB code 114100737 Yongkil Cho Cho, Yongkil Yongkil Cho Hanyang University in Seoul 01 01 JB code ds.2.14fel 06 10.1075/ds.2.14fel 171 183 13 Article 14 01 04 Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction 1 A01 01 JB code 194100738 Sebastian Feller Feller, Sebastian Sebastian Feller University of Münster 01 01 JB code ds.2.15roq 06 10.1075/ds.2.15roq 185 193 9 Article 15 01 04 Political rhetoric in visual images Political rhetoric in visual images 1 A01 01 JB code 165100739 Georges Roque Roque, Georges Georges Roque University of Paris, CNRS 01 01 JB code ds.2.16gre 06 10.1075/ds.2.16gre 195 207 13 Article 16 01 04 Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts 1 A01 01 JB code 267100740 Marion Grein Grein, Marion Marion Grein University of Mainz 01 01 JB code ds.2.17mig 06 10.1075/ds.2.17mig 209 219 11 Article 17 01 04 The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports 1 A01 01 JB code 479100741 Marta Mignini Mignini, Marta Marta Mignini Catholic University of Milan 01 01 JB code ds.2.18oza 06 10.1075/ds.2.18oza 221 233 13 Article 18 01 04 Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates 1 A01 01 JB code 78100742 Didem Ozan Ozan, Didem Didem Ozan University of Münster 01 01 JB code ds.2.19min 06 10.1075/ds.2.19min 235 250 16 Article 19 01 04 Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia 1 A01 01 JB code 282100743 Giuseppe Mininni Mininni, Giuseppe Giuseppe Mininni University of Bari 2 A01 01 JB code 805100744 Amelia Manuti Manuti, Amelia Amelia Manuti University of Bari 3 A01 01 JB code 21100745 Rossella Rubino Rubino, Rossella Rossella Rubino University of Bari 01 01 JB code ds.2.20kja 06 10.1075/ds.2.20kja 251 266 16 Article 20 01 04 Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse 1 A01 01 JB code 525100746 Anne Lise Kjær Kjær, Anne Lise Anne Lise Kjær University of Copenhagen 01 01 JB code ds.2.21che 06 10.1075/ds.2.21che 267 281 15 Article 21 01 04 A court judgment as dialogue A court judgment as dialogue 1 A01 01 JB code 754100747 Le Cheng Cheng, Le Le Cheng City University of Hong Kong 2 A01 01 JB code 313100748 King Kui Sin Sin, King Kui King Kui Sin City University of Hong Kong 01 01 JB code ds.2.22par 06 10.1075/ds.2.22par 283 283 1 Section header 22 01 04 Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation 01 01 JB code ds.2.23rou 06 10.1075/ds.2.23rou 285 307 23 Article 23 01 04 Round table discussion Round table discussion 01 01 JB code ds.2.24gen 06 10.1075/ds.2.24gen 309 313 5 Miscellaneous 24 01 04 General Index General Index 01 01 JB code ds.2.25lis 06 10.1075/ds.2.25lis 315 316 2 Miscellaneous 25 01 04 List of Contributors List of Contributors 01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20081009 C 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027210197 WORLD 03 01 JB 17 Google 03 https://play.google.com/store/books 21 01 00 Unqualified price 00 105.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 00 88.00 GBP 01 00 Unqualified price 00 158.00 USD 503007045 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code DS 2 Hb 15 9789027210197 06 10.1075/ds.2 13 2008035989 00 BB 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 735 gr 10 01 JB code DS 02 1875-1792 02 2.00 01 02 Dialogue Studies Dialogue Studies 01 01 Dialogue and Rhetoric Dialogue and Rhetoric 1 B01 01 JB code 753096973 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/753096973 01 eng 11 332 03 03 xiv 03 00 316 03 01 22 808/.926 03 2008 P95.455 04 Dialogue analysis. 04 Rhetoric. 10 LAN009000 12 CFG 24 JB code COMM.CGEN Communication Studies 24 JB code LIN.DIAL Dialogue studies 24 JB code LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB code PHIL.GEN Philosophy 24 JB code LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 01 06 03 00 The volume deals with the relationship between dialogue and rhetoric. The actual state of the art in dialogue analysis is characterized by a tendency to overcome the distinction between competence and performance and to combine components from both sides of the dichotomy, in a way which includes rules as well as inferences. The same is true of rhetoric: the guidelines proposed here no longer state that rationality and persuasion are mutually exclusive but suggest that they interact in what might be called the ‘mixed game’. The concept of a dialogic rhetoric thus poses the question of how to integrate the different voices. Part I of the volume assembles several ‘rhetorical paradigms’ which are applied to real-life performance. Part II on ‘rhetoric in the mixed game’ contains a selection of papers which illustrate the interaction of various components. The Round Table discussion in Part III brings proponents of different paradigms face to face with each other and shows how they justify their own positions and present arguments against rival paradigms. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/ds.2.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027210197.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027210197.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/ds.2.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/ds.2.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 JB code ds.2.01wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.01wei ix xiv 6 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices 1 A01 01 JB code 194100725 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/194100725 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.02par 06 10.1075/ds.2.02par 1 1 1 Section header 2 01 04 Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.03wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.03wei 3 21 19 Article 3 01 04 Rhetoric in the Mixed Game Rhetoric in the Mixed Game 1 A01 01 JB code 342100726 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/342100726 01 eng 30 00

The paper starts from the assumption that rhetoric is inherent to dialogue. Such a view is based on the Theory of Dialogic Action Games or the Mixed Game Model, which is a theory about human beings’ complex ability to come to terms with dialogic issues in ever-changing surroundings. Human beings are not lost in the chaos of ever-varying empirical data but are competent-to-perform in their own interests, i.e. competent to effecttively achieve their purposes in dialogic action games. Models of dialogue usually proceed either by abstraction to rule-governed patterns of competence or by reducing the object-of-study to empirical elements. In contrast to such reductionist models of the simple, the theory of the dialogic action game represents an adventure in the complex of the mixed game of human action. Basic premises and methodological principles of the theory will be briefly introduced. A sample analysis of a political Round Table discussion demonstrates how the model works.

01 01 JB code ds.2.04coo 06 10.1075/ds.2.04coo 23 37 15 Article 4 01 04 The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism 1 A01 01 JB code 313100727 François Cooren Cooren, François François Cooren University of Montréal 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/313100727 01 eng 30 00

I propose to open up the dialogic scene by showing that a dialogue is never just about discourse and language. It is also about facts, principles, passions, values, ideologies, collectives, worldviews, etc. that can (or cannot) make a difference, i.e., do something, in a given interaction. According to this approach, dialogue is one of the most important phonation devices through which a plethora of ‘things’ – which I call actants – can come to act from a distance. Showing that these actants can be rhetorically mobilized in a given interaction allows me to account for phenomena of ‘ventriloquism,’ that is, the various ways by which human interactants make certain entities (collectives, procedures, policies, ideologies, etc.) speak in their name and vice versa. We will see that this way of dislocating the dialogic scene allows us to address thoroughly the question of power and authority, a question that tends to be relatively downplayed by dialogue analysts.

01 01 JB code ds.2.05cis 06 10.1075/ds.2.05cis 39 53 15 Article 5 01 04 Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting 1 A01 01 JB code 1100728 Kenneth N. Cissna Cissna, Kenneth N. Kenneth N. Cissna University of South Florida 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/1100728 2 A01 01 JB code 55100729 Rob Anderson Anderson, Rob Rob Anderson Saint Louis University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/55100729 01 eng 30 00

Distinguishing three concepts of dialogue, we describe a dialogic approach to rhetoric that conceives rhetoric as coexperiential, collaborative, constitutive, open, expansive, and both traditional and radical. Further, we offer an emergent approach to studying dialogic rhetoric that draws on both rhetorical criticism and discourse analysis. We then review briefly four empirical projects in which we have studied conversational dialogue or dialogic rhetoric, including a series of studies of the 1957 dialogue between Martin Buber and Carl Rogers, as well as other conversations involving Gregory Bateson, B. F. Skinner, and Rush Limbaugh. We conclude by identifying the implications of our work to scholarship related to the conversations we have studied, to communication theory and practice, to the facilitation of public dialogue, and to the study of dialogic conversations.

01 01 JB code ds.2.06cra 06 10.1075/ds.2.06cra 55 67 13 Article 6 01 04 The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events 1 A01 01 JB code 165100730 Robert T. Craig Craig, Robert T. Robert T. Craig University of Colorado at Boulder 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/165100730 01 eng 30 00

Regarding ‘dialogue’ as a normative rather than a purely descriptive concept, this study describes the rhetoric of practical arguments about the possibility or impossibility of dialogue in a corpus of discourse samples primarily drawn from the Internet. Political, social, and personal domains of dialogue are distinguished and associated respectively with realist, moral, and experiential discourses that intermix in practical argumentation. Arguments for or against the possibility of dialogue may appeal to objective conditions (convergence of interests or beliefs, relatively equal power, a just and supportive sociopolitical order) as well as to morally accountable attitudes and actions (respect, trust, and reaching out versus hatred, dogmatism, dishonesty, and violence). Arguments may also appeal to critical events that interrupt routine patterns of thought and communication and are said to open a potential for dialogue that may or may not be realized in practice. Implications for normative theories of dialogue and rhetoric are considered.

01 01 JB code ds.2.07let 06 10.1075/ds.2.07let 69 81 13 Article 7 01 04 Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? 1 A01 01 JB code 267100731 Alain Létourneau Létourneau, Alain Alain Létourneau University of Sherbrooke 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/267100731 01 eng 30 00

First, we should recall that a rhetorical dimension is forcibly present in the performance of dialog, if we understand dialog both as an invitation and as a reciprocal openness for a constructive process; it can be demonstrated if we look at some proposals of dialog (Buber 1922, and more recently Isaacs 1999). Usually the refusal to consider that there is a rhetorical aspect aims to keep a specific communication process protected against undue manipulation or abuse; but a false assumption is then made. To guard us against such a slope, many authors have pleaded for a rhetorical ethic or an ethic of the rhetoric (Johannesen 19964). We should discuss whether some distinction should be made between valid and non valid forms of rhetoric, review the conditions of an ethical rhetoric, ask how and if they could be meaningfully used as criteria of exclusion (of the nonrhetorical as non-ethical and vice-versa).

01 01 JB code ds.2.08emm 06 10.1075/ds.2.08emm 83 93 11 Article 8 01 04 Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility 1 A01 01 JB code 789100732 Barbara A. Emmel Emmel, Barbara A. Barbara A. Emmel University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/789100732 01 eng 30 00

Any rhetorical exchange can involve a form of ‘identity theft’ if others attempt to wrest authorship from the rhetor. The paradigms of the late 1900s that privileged mutual inquiry into shared knowledge have now evolved into ones that privilege not only the shared, but also difference, debate, even dispute – and the ways in which we might change as a result of a negotiation between what is shared and what is unshared. Such paradigms seek to defang the antagonistic even as they recognize that inquiry into difference is an essential part of rhetorical exchange, as well as increased individual (and social) responsibility for position-taking, i.e. our very identities as social and thinking beings. Whereas ‘common ground’ now represents the acceptance of difference and responsibility as the starting point of any rhetorical exchange, a ‘rhetoric of recognition’ represents an increased awareness of the possibility of change as a result of rhetoric.

01 01 JB code ds.2.09teu 06 10.1075/ds.2.09teu 95 118 24 Article 9 01 04 What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin 1 A01 01 JB code 982100733 Wolfgang Teubert Teubert, Wolfgang Wolfgang Teubert University of Birmingham 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/982100733 01 eng 30 00

In our Western democracies, parliamentary debates are seen less as a collaborative effort to achieve a shareable interpretation of an issue than a fight between contestants to be arbitrated by the media as the sole interface between text producers and text consumers. Arguments are no longer designed to convince or persuade. Rather the role of argumentation is twofold. By constant repetition, arguments construct ideological identity. But reformulations, permutations and recombinations of arguments can also give rise to gradual innovation. My illustration is the House of Commons debate of the Lisbon Treaty’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. That the argumentation we find in this debate is full of blatant repetition and void of any new aspects may be caused to some extent by the media industry’s growing grip on text production. Yet it also questions the role assigned to argumentation in our society.

01 01 JB code ds.2.10cat 06 10.1075/ds.2.10cat 119 131 13 Article 10 01 04 Logical and rhetorical rules of debate Logical and rhetorical rules of debate 1 A01 01 JB code 78100734 Adelino Cattani Cattani, Adelino Adelino Cattani University of Padua 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78100734 01 eng 30 00

The opposition ‘logic/rhetoric’ represents a fundamental cultural antagonism. Surprising as it may seem, contemporary revival of the art of rhetoric has not been primarily promoted by scholars or professional users of rhetoric but developed itself through alternative, unusual paths, such as those of epistemology, logic and science. This is the case of the theory of knowledge (Polanyi) or of the improvements brought to informal logic by Perelman and Toulmin. As far as our specific interest in rhetoric is concerned, significant contributions to the history of science as well as to the Philosophy of Science have been made (by Thomas Kuhn among many others). At the core we always find the same eternal and unresolved dilemma opposing truth to persuasion, i.e. to be true or to persuade/convince someone to believe that something is true. Persuasion and conviction are intimately connected with debate.

01 01 JB code ds.2.11eem 06 10.1075/ds.2.11eem 133 151 19 Article 11 01 04 Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring 1 A01 01 JB code 1100735 Frans H. Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. Frans H. Eemeren University of Amsterdam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/1100735 2 A01 01 JB code 997100736 Peter Houtlosser Houtlosser, Peter Peter Houtlosser University of Amsterdam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/997100736 01 eng 30 00

The fallacies are one of the most significant research topics in the study of argumentation. After Hamblin (1970) revealed the inadequacy of the dominant Logical Standard Treatment of the fallacies, several kinds of alternative treatments have been developed. The “pragma-dialectical” alternative developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1992, 2004) involves replacing the logical standard definition of fallacies as “arguments that seem valid but are not valid” by a broader communicative definition of fallacies as pragmatic argumentative moves that are “violations of dialectical rules for critical discussion”. To account for the deceptive role the fallacies may have, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) have taken this approach a crucial step further by bringing in the notion of “strategic manoeuvring”: the systematic combination in argumentative discourse of the pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical. Fallacies can be analysed as derailments of legitimate ways of strategic manoeuvring that can only be identified in contextualized argumentative discourse.

01 01 JB code ds.2.12par 06 10.1075/ds.2.12par 153 153 1 Section header 12 01 04 Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.13cho 06 10.1075/ds.2.13cho 155 169 15 Article 13 01 04 Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' 1 A01 01 JB code 114100737 Yongkil Cho Cho, Yongkil Yongkil Cho Hanyang University in Seoul 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/114100737 01 eng 30 00

From the standpoint of Weigand’s concept of ‘competence-in-performance’, I will analyse the communicative function of sangdae-nopim in conversations at Korean workplaces. The aim of this investigation is to show that in the modern Korean society speakers draw on sangdae-nopim in a more and more strategical fashion. Rather than reducing its function to the traditional value of ‘showing respect to one’s dialogue partner’, I will demonstrate how sangdae-nopim is used to mediate between both respect and selfinterest.

01 01 JB code ds.2.14fel 06 10.1075/ds.2.14fel 171 183 13 Article 14 01 04 Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction 1 A01 01 JB code 194100738 Sebastian Feller Feller, Sebastian Sebastian Feller University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/194100738 01 eng 30 00

In the present article I will critically discuss various approaches to irony originating from different disciplines. Besides traditional definitions of ironic speech dating back to Roman times as well as present-day linguistic models, I will also deal with irony from a psychological perspective. As this inquiry will show, all the approaches under discussion are exclusively monologic and so do not provide a full account of the communicative functions of ironic expressions in language use. I will therefore suggest a dialogic perspective which highlights the communicative effects of ironic talk neglected by previous models. As a result, I will show that irony need not merely be used by a speaker to bypass direct criticism in order to avoid conflict or to compensate for psychological incongruities but as a skilful rhetorical device to motivate the interlocutor to act for the good of herself or of other people around.

01 01 JB code ds.2.15roq 06 10.1075/ds.2.15roq 185 193 9 Article 15 01 04 Political rhetoric in visual images Political rhetoric in visual images 1 A01 01 JB code 165100739 Georges Roque Roque, Georges Georges Roque University of Paris, CNRS 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/165100739 01 eng 30 00

Given the nature of fixed visual images, visual rhetoric is usually seen as monologic. However, in some cases, an analysis of images can reveal them to be dialogic in a weak sense. This hypothesis is examined taking as examples political images, mostly posters, protesting against war. One obvious possibility consists in introducing a written dialogue in the poster. More interestingly, in many posters there is a play between text and image: since an image cannot directly negate, it often shows the crude reality of war. In these cases, it is the text that negates what is affirmed by the image. The opposition between images showing the destructiveness of war and texts rejecting war is analysed both rhetorically and in terms of Ducrot’s theory of polyphony. Finally, parodies and pastiches provide good examples of a kind of dialogue between an image and its source.

01 01 JB code ds.2.16gre 06 10.1075/ds.2.16gre 195 207 13 Article 16 01 04 Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts 1 A01 01 JB code 267100740 Marion Grein Grein, Marion Marion Grein University of Mainz 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/267100740 01 eng 30 00

Communication principles are culturally determined and are, without doubt, omnipresent in every dialogue. In some languages, these culturally determined principles can directly be linked to sociocultural concepts. These concepts are wellelaborated in Japan. In this article, I shall emphasize three concepts: harmony as the communication ideal, visceral communication and intuitive understanding (concept of haragei and inshin denshin), and the different roles of the individual depending on social distance honne (private, true self) vs. tatemae (official, mask).

01 01 JB code ds.2.17mig 06 10.1075/ds.2.17mig 209 219 11 Article 17 01 04 The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports 1 A01 01 JB code 479100741 Marta Mignini Mignini, Marta Marta Mignini Catholic University of Milan 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/479100741 01 eng 30 00

In this paper the concepts of dialogic interaction, of circular communication and the role of logic and emotions will receive special attention. In the first part of my manuscript I will show that banks’ annual reports are a two-way communication where two heterogeneous subjects exchange information, and feed-back from them is crucial for a success. In the second part I will focus on the coexistence of logic and rhetoric in annual reports, which have often been considered linguistically distant from everyday interaction. To do this, I will provide examples of devices like the order of elements conveying positive or negative ideas, rhetorical questions, repetitions, metaphors and appeals directed at stakeholders. The third and last part of my paper will stress the importance of emotional linguistic tools with particular reference to the concepts of “central” and “peripheral” routes to persuasion (Petty et al. 1994).

01 01 JB code ds.2.18oza 06 10.1075/ds.2.18oza 221 233 13 Article 18 01 04 Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates 1 A01 01 JB code 78100742 Didem Ozan Ozan, Didem Didem Ozan University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78100742 01 eng 30 00

Rhetoric as the art of using human communicative abilities effectively in order to promote individual or collective interests is a permanent and inherent feature of dialogue as a mixed game. In parliamentary debates, influencing attention is used as a rhetorical strategy. Speakers anticipate their audience’s as well as the public’s perception. They target and influence the direction and intensity of attention in various political domains. Politicians have to mediate between institutional functions and roles and their electorate’s expectations. If they do this, they can easily get into conflicts of interest. In October 2004, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and the then German Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer declared their positions regarding the scheduled accession of Turkey to the European Union. Two sample analyses are taken from their speeches given during two national parliamentary debates. Rhetorical strategies dependent on different cultural conditions were used by these political leaders to shift attention from internal conflicts which could weaken their position.

01 01 JB code ds.2.19min 06 10.1075/ds.2.19min 235 250 16 Article 19 01 04 Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia 1 A01 01 JB code 282100743 Giuseppe Mininni Mininni, Giuseppe Giuseppe Mininni University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/282100743 2 A01 01 JB code 805100744 Amelia Manuti Manuti, Amelia Amelia Manuti University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/805100744 3 A01 01 JB code 21100745 Rossella Rubino Rubino, Rossella Rossella Rubino University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/21100745 01 eng 30 00

In the post-modern era the global conscience has to deal with various dilemmas, which are made more complex by media interaction. These issues mostly pertain to the bioethical sphere of human experience, i.e. the discursive sphere linked to the necessity to overcome any interpretative routine of marked separation between ‘public’ and ‘private’. A specific effect of such an enunciative claim can be seen in the social debate on euthanasia recently hosted by the media since through subtle argumentative strategies it focuses on different interpretative repertoires of the dignity of human life. The present paper aims to discuss the results of a qualitative study, the aim of which is to investigate certain segments of the “dialogue about euthanasia”, collected from the Italian media (press, television, internet). Diatextual analysis has been adopted as a methodological tool to highlight the recurrence of specific rhetorical assets of both pro and contra positions.

01 01 JB code ds.2.20kja 06 10.1075/ds.2.20kja 251 266 16 Article 20 01 04 Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse 1 A01 01 JB code 525100746 Anne Lise Kjær Kjær, Anne Lise Anne Lise Kjær University of Copenhagen 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/525100746 01 eng 30 00

This paper falls within the research field of legal linguistics. The subject is a question of great concern in current comparative legal research: Is it possible to develop a common legal language in the European Union, given the cultural and linguistic plurality of Europe? I argue that it is. What it requires is a common legal discourse and the development of a common European interpretive community. A key mechanism of this development is the recontextualization of legal concepts , i.e. the circulation of concepts among and across the national and international interpretive communities of the European Union accompanied by the discursive interactions of the legal actors at national and supranational levels of EU law. The contribution provides one element in a wider discourse analytical framework for the study of the paradox of ‘unity in diversity’ inherent in the ambition of developing a common legal language in Europe.

01 01 JB code ds.2.21che 06 10.1075/ds.2.21che 267 281 15 Article 21 01 04 A court judgment as dialogue A court judgment as dialogue 1 A01 01 JB code 754100747 Le Cheng Cheng, Le Le Cheng City University of Hong Kong 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/754100747 2 A01 01 JB code 313100748 King Kui Sin Sin, King Kui King Kui Sin City University of Hong Kong 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/313100748 01 eng 30 00

Dialogue is of cardinal importance in maintaining the interpersonal relationship between judges and facilitating judgment drafting as collaborative problem solving. It is also important for the check and balance between courts and the legislature. A court judgment can therefore be taken as a dialogue between judges as well as that between courts and the legislature. Based on the analysis of some judgments in Hong Kong, the purpose of the paper is to exemplify rhetorical preferences of the dialogue and to unravel the underlying pragmatic rationale. The paper further identifies rhetorical strategies such as modality and intertextuality as creating space for dialogue.

01 01 JB code ds.2.22par 06 10.1075/ds.2.22par 283 283 1 Section header 22 01 04 Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.23rou 06 10.1075/ds.2.23rou 285 307 23 Article 23 01 04 Round table discussion Round table discussion 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.24gen 06 10.1075/ds.2.24gen 309 313 5 Miscellaneous 24 01 04 General Index General Index 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.25lis 06 10.1075/ds.2.25lis 315 316 2 Miscellaneous 25 01 04 List of Contributors List of Contributors 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/ds.2 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20081009 C 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD WORLD US CA MX 09 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 21 31 20 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 105.00 EUR 02 00 Unqualified price 02 88.00 01 Z 0 GBP GB US CA MX 01 01 JB 2 John Benjamins Publishing Company +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 21 31 20 01 00 Unqualified price 02 JB 1 02 158.00 USD
673007373 03 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code DS 2 Eb 15 9789027290823 06 10.1075/ds.2 00 EA E107 10 01 JB code DS 02 1875-1792 02 2.00 01 02 Dialogue Studies Dialogue Studies 11 01 JB code jbe-all 01 02 Full EBA collection (ca. 4,200 titles) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-philosophy 01 02 Subject collection: Philosophy (254 titles, 1969–2015) 05 02 Philosophy (1969–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-all 01 02 Complete backlist (3,208 titles, 1967–2015) 05 02 Complete backlist (1967–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-communicationstudies 01 02 Subject collection: Communication Studies (152 titles, 2000–2015) 05 02 Communication Studies (2000–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-linguistics 01 02 Subject collection: Linguistics (2,773 titles, 1967–2015) 05 02 Linguistics (1967–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-pragmatics 01 02 Subject collection: Pragmatics (804 titles, 1978–2015) 05 02 Pragmatics (1978–2015) 11 01 JB code jbe-2015-ds 01 02 Dialogue Studies (vols. 1–27, 2007–2015) 05 02 DS (vols. 1–27, 2007–2015) 01 01 Dialogue and Rhetoric Dialogue and Rhetoric 1 B01 01 JB code 753096973 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/753096973 01 eng 11 332 03 03 xiv 03 00 316 03 01 22 808/.926 03 2008 P95.455 04 Dialogue analysis. 04 Rhetoric. 10 LAN009000 12 CFG 24 JB code COMM.CGEN Communication Studies 24 JB code LIN.DIAL Dialogue studies 24 JB code LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB code PHIL.GEN Philosophy 24 JB code LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 01 06 03 00 The volume deals with the relationship between dialogue and rhetoric. The actual state of the art in dialogue analysis is characterized by a tendency to overcome the distinction between competence and performance and to combine components from both sides of the dichotomy, in a way which includes rules as well as inferences. The same is true of rhetoric: the guidelines proposed here no longer state that rationality and persuasion are mutually exclusive but suggest that they interact in what might be called the ‘mixed game’. The concept of a dialogic rhetoric thus poses the question of how to integrate the different voices. Part I of the volume assembles several ‘rhetorical paradigms’ which are applied to real-life performance. Part II on ‘rhetoric in the mixed game’ contains a selection of papers which illustrate the interaction of various components. The Round Table discussion in Part III brings proponents of different paradigms face to face with each other and shows how they justify their own positions and present arguments against rival paradigms. 01 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/ds.2.png 01 01 D502 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027210197.jpg 01 01 D504 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027210197.tif 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/ds.2.png 02 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/ds.2.hb.png 03 00 03 01 01 D503 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/ds.2.hb.png 01 01 JB code ds.2.01wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.01wei ix xiv 6 Miscellaneous 1 01 04 Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices Introduction: Rhetoric or how to integrate the different voices 1 A01 01 JB code 194100725 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/194100725 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.02par 06 10.1075/ds.2.02par 1 1 1 Section header 2 01 04 Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms Part I. Rhetorical Paradigms 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.03wei 06 10.1075/ds.2.03wei 3 21 19 Article 3 01 04 Rhetoric in the Mixed Game Rhetoric in the Mixed Game 1 A01 01 JB code 342100726 Edda Weigand Weigand, Edda Edda Weigand University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/342100726 01 eng 30 00

The paper starts from the assumption that rhetoric is inherent to dialogue. Such a view is based on the Theory of Dialogic Action Games or the Mixed Game Model, which is a theory about human beings’ complex ability to come to terms with dialogic issues in ever-changing surroundings. Human beings are not lost in the chaos of ever-varying empirical data but are competent-to-perform in their own interests, i.e. competent to effecttively achieve their purposes in dialogic action games. Models of dialogue usually proceed either by abstraction to rule-governed patterns of competence or by reducing the object-of-study to empirical elements. In contrast to such reductionist models of the simple, the theory of the dialogic action game represents an adventure in the complex of the mixed game of human action. Basic premises and methodological principles of the theory will be briefly introduced. A sample analysis of a political Round Table discussion demonstrates how the model works.

01 01 JB code ds.2.04coo 06 10.1075/ds.2.04coo 23 37 15 Article 4 01 04 The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism The selection of agency as a rhetorical device: Opening up the scene of dialogue through ventriloquism 1 A01 01 JB code 313100727 François Cooren Cooren, François François Cooren University of Montréal 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/313100727 01 eng 30 00

I propose to open up the dialogic scene by showing that a dialogue is never just about discourse and language. It is also about facts, principles, passions, values, ideologies, collectives, worldviews, etc. that can (or cannot) make a difference, i.e., do something, in a given interaction. According to this approach, dialogue is one of the most important phonation devices through which a plethora of ‘things’ – which I call actants – can come to act from a distance. Showing that these actants can be rhetorically mobilized in a given interaction allows me to account for phenomena of ‘ventriloquism,’ that is, the various ways by which human interactants make certain entities (collectives, procedures, policies, ideologies, etc.) speak in their name and vice versa. We will see that this way of dislocating the dialogic scene allows us to address thoroughly the question of power and authority, a question that tends to be relatively downplayed by dialogue analysts.

01 01 JB code ds.2.05cis 06 10.1075/ds.2.05cis 39 53 15 Article 5 01 04 Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting Dialogic rhetoric, coauthorship, and moments of meeting 1 A01 01 JB code 1100728 Kenneth N. Cissna Cissna, Kenneth N. Kenneth N. Cissna University of South Florida 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/1100728 2 A01 01 JB code 55100729 Rob Anderson Anderson, Rob Rob Anderson Saint Louis University 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/55100729 01 eng 30 00

Distinguishing three concepts of dialogue, we describe a dialogic approach to rhetoric that conceives rhetoric as coexperiential, collaborative, constitutive, open, expansive, and both traditional and radical. Further, we offer an emergent approach to studying dialogic rhetoric that draws on both rhetorical criticism and discourse analysis. We then review briefly four empirical projects in which we have studied conversational dialogue or dialogic rhetoric, including a series of studies of the 1957 dialogue between Martin Buber and Carl Rogers, as well as other conversations involving Gregory Bateson, B. F. Skinner, and Rush Limbaugh. We conclude by identifying the implications of our work to scholarship related to the conversations we have studied, to communication theory and practice, to the facilitation of public dialogue, and to the study of dialogic conversations.

01 01 JB code ds.2.06cra 06 10.1075/ds.2.06cra 55 67 13 Article 6 01 04 The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events The rhetoric of 'dialogue' in metadiscourse: Possibility/impossibility arguments and critical events 1 A01 01 JB code 165100730 Robert T. Craig Craig, Robert T. Robert T. Craig University of Colorado at Boulder 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/165100730 01 eng 30 00

Regarding ‘dialogue’ as a normative rather than a purely descriptive concept, this study describes the rhetoric of practical arguments about the possibility or impossibility of dialogue in a corpus of discourse samples primarily drawn from the Internet. Political, social, and personal domains of dialogue are distinguished and associated respectively with realist, moral, and experiential discourses that intermix in practical argumentation. Arguments for or against the possibility of dialogue may appeal to objective conditions (convergence of interests or beliefs, relatively equal power, a just and supportive sociopolitical order) as well as to morally accountable attitudes and actions (respect, trust, and reaching out versus hatred, dogmatism, dishonesty, and violence). Arguments may also appeal to critical events that interrupt routine patterns of thought and communication and are said to open a potential for dialogue that may or may not be realized in practice. Implications for normative theories of dialogue and rhetoric are considered.

01 01 JB code ds.2.07let 06 10.1075/ds.2.07let 69 81 13 Article 7 01 04 Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? Rhetoric and ethic of dialog: Can conditions of performance serve as excluding criteria? 1 A01 01 JB code 267100731 Alain Létourneau Létourneau, Alain Alain Létourneau University of Sherbrooke 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/267100731 01 eng 30 00

First, we should recall that a rhetorical dimension is forcibly present in the performance of dialog, if we understand dialog both as an invitation and as a reciprocal openness for a constructive process; it can be demonstrated if we look at some proposals of dialog (Buber 1922, and more recently Isaacs 1999). Usually the refusal to consider that there is a rhetorical aspect aims to keep a specific communication process protected against undue manipulation or abuse; but a false assumption is then made. To guard us against such a slope, many authors have pleaded for a rhetorical ethic or an ethic of the rhetoric (Johannesen 19964). We should discuss whether some distinction should be made between valid and non valid forms of rhetoric, review the conditions of an ethical rhetoric, ask how and if they could be meaningfully used as criteria of exclusion (of the nonrhetorical as non-ethical and vice-versa).

01 01 JB code ds.2.08emm 06 10.1075/ds.2.08emm 83 93 11 Article 8 01 04 Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility Common ground and (re)defanging the antagonistic: A paradigm for argumentation as shared inquiry and responsibility 1 A01 01 JB code 789100732 Barbara A. Emmel Emmel, Barbara A. Barbara A. Emmel University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/789100732 01 eng 30 00

Any rhetorical exchange can involve a form of ‘identity theft’ if others attempt to wrest authorship from the rhetor. The paradigms of the late 1900s that privileged mutual inquiry into shared knowledge have now evolved into ones that privilege not only the shared, but also difference, debate, even dispute – and the ways in which we might change as a result of a negotiation between what is shared and what is unshared. Such paradigms seek to defang the antagonistic even as they recognize that inquiry into difference is an essential part of rhetorical exchange, as well as increased individual (and social) responsibility for position-taking, i.e. our very identities as social and thinking beings. Whereas ‘common ground’ now represents the acceptance of difference and responsibility as the starting point of any rhetorical exchange, a ‘rhetoric of recognition’ represents an increased awareness of the possibility of change as a result of rhetoric.

01 01 JB code ds.2.09teu 06 10.1075/ds.2.09teu 95 118 24 Article 9 01 04 What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin What is the role of arguments? Fundamental human rights in the age of spin 1 A01 01 JB code 982100733 Wolfgang Teubert Teubert, Wolfgang Wolfgang Teubert University of Birmingham 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/982100733 01 eng 30 00

In our Western democracies, parliamentary debates are seen less as a collaborative effort to achieve a shareable interpretation of an issue than a fight between contestants to be arbitrated by the media as the sole interface between text producers and text consumers. Arguments are no longer designed to convince or persuade. Rather the role of argumentation is twofold. By constant repetition, arguments construct ideological identity. But reformulations, permutations and recombinations of arguments can also give rise to gradual innovation. My illustration is the House of Commons debate of the Lisbon Treaty’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. That the argumentation we find in this debate is full of blatant repetition and void of any new aspects may be caused to some extent by the media industry’s growing grip on text production. Yet it also questions the role assigned to argumentation in our society.

01 01 JB code ds.2.10cat 06 10.1075/ds.2.10cat 119 131 13 Article 10 01 04 Logical and rhetorical rules of debate Logical and rhetorical rules of debate 1 A01 01 JB code 78100734 Adelino Cattani Cattani, Adelino Adelino Cattani University of Padua 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78100734 01 eng 30 00

The opposition ‘logic/rhetoric’ represents a fundamental cultural antagonism. Surprising as it may seem, contemporary revival of the art of rhetoric has not been primarily promoted by scholars or professional users of rhetoric but developed itself through alternative, unusual paths, such as those of epistemology, logic and science. This is the case of the theory of knowledge (Polanyi) or of the improvements brought to informal logic by Perelman and Toulmin. As far as our specific interest in rhetoric is concerned, significant contributions to the history of science as well as to the Philosophy of Science have been made (by Thomas Kuhn among many others). At the core we always find the same eternal and unresolved dilemma opposing truth to persuasion, i.e. to be true or to persuade/convince someone to believe that something is true. Persuasion and conviction are intimately connected with debate.

01 01 JB code ds.2.11eem 06 10.1075/ds.2.11eem 133 151 19 Article 11 01 04 Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring Rhetoric in a dialectical framework: Fallacies as derailments of strategic manoeuvring 1 A01 01 JB code 1100735 Frans H. Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. Frans H. Eemeren University of Amsterdam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/1100735 2 A01 01 JB code 997100736 Peter Houtlosser Houtlosser, Peter Peter Houtlosser University of Amsterdam 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/997100736 01 eng 30 00

The fallacies are one of the most significant research topics in the study of argumentation. After Hamblin (1970) revealed the inadequacy of the dominant Logical Standard Treatment of the fallacies, several kinds of alternative treatments have been developed. The “pragma-dialectical” alternative developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1992, 2004) involves replacing the logical standard definition of fallacies as “arguments that seem valid but are not valid” by a broader communicative definition of fallacies as pragmatic argumentative moves that are “violations of dialectical rules for critical discussion”. To account for the deceptive role the fallacies may have, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) have taken this approach a crucial step further by bringing in the notion of “strategic manoeuvring”: the systematic combination in argumentative discourse of the pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical. Fallacies can be analysed as derailments of legitimate ways of strategic manoeuvring that can only be identified in contextualized argumentative discourse.

01 01 JB code ds.2.12par 06 10.1075/ds.2.12par 153 153 1 Section header 12 01 04 Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games Part II. Rhetoric in the Mixed Game: Communicative means, cultural values, and institutional games 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.13cho 06 10.1075/ds.2.13cho 155 169 15 Article 13 01 04 Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' Strategic use of Korean honorifics: Functions of 'partner-deference sangdae-nopim' 1 A01 01 JB code 114100737 Yongkil Cho Cho, Yongkil Yongkil Cho Hanyang University in Seoul 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/114100737 01 eng 30 00

From the standpoint of Weigand’s concept of ‘competence-in-performance’, I will analyse the communicative function of sangdae-nopim in conversations at Korean workplaces. The aim of this investigation is to show that in the modern Korean society speakers draw on sangdae-nopim in a more and more strategical fashion. Rather than reducing its function to the traditional value of ‘showing respect to one’s dialogue partner’, I will demonstrate how sangdae-nopim is used to mediate between both respect and selfinterest.

01 01 JB code ds.2.14fel 06 10.1075/ds.2.14fel 171 183 13 Article 14 01 04 Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction Irony as a rhetorical device in dialogic interaction 1 A01 01 JB code 194100738 Sebastian Feller Feller, Sebastian Sebastian Feller University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/194100738 01 eng 30 00

In the present article I will critically discuss various approaches to irony originating from different disciplines. Besides traditional definitions of ironic speech dating back to Roman times as well as present-day linguistic models, I will also deal with irony from a psychological perspective. As this inquiry will show, all the approaches under discussion are exclusively monologic and so do not provide a full account of the communicative functions of ironic expressions in language use. I will therefore suggest a dialogic perspective which highlights the communicative effects of ironic talk neglected by previous models. As a result, I will show that irony need not merely be used by a speaker to bypass direct criticism in order to avoid conflict or to compensate for psychological incongruities but as a skilful rhetorical device to motivate the interlocutor to act for the good of herself or of other people around.

01 01 JB code ds.2.15roq 06 10.1075/ds.2.15roq 185 193 9 Article 15 01 04 Political rhetoric in visual images Political rhetoric in visual images 1 A01 01 JB code 165100739 Georges Roque Roque, Georges Georges Roque University of Paris, CNRS 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/165100739 01 eng 30 00

Given the nature of fixed visual images, visual rhetoric is usually seen as monologic. However, in some cases, an analysis of images can reveal them to be dialogic in a weak sense. This hypothesis is examined taking as examples political images, mostly posters, protesting against war. One obvious possibility consists in introducing a written dialogue in the poster. More interestingly, in many posters there is a play between text and image: since an image cannot directly negate, it often shows the crude reality of war. In these cases, it is the text that negates what is affirmed by the image. The opposition between images showing the destructiveness of war and texts rejecting war is analysed both rhetorically and in terms of Ducrot’s theory of polyphony. Finally, parodies and pastiches provide good examples of a kind of dialogue between an image and its source.

01 01 JB code ds.2.16gre 06 10.1075/ds.2.16gre 195 207 13 Article 16 01 04 Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts Sociological concepts and their impact on rhetoric: Japanese language concepts 1 A01 01 JB code 267100740 Marion Grein Grein, Marion Marion Grein University of Mainz 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/267100740 01 eng 30 00

Communication principles are culturally determined and are, without doubt, omnipresent in every dialogue. In some languages, these culturally determined principles can directly be linked to sociocultural concepts. These concepts are wellelaborated in Japan. In this article, I shall emphasize three concepts: harmony as the communication ideal, visceral communication and intuitive understanding (concept of haragei and inshin denshin), and the different roles of the individual depending on social distance honne (private, true self) vs. tatemae (official, mask).

01 01 JB code ds.2.17mig 06 10.1075/ds.2.17mig 209 219 11 Article 17 01 04 The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports The rhetorical component of dialogic communication in Banks' annual reports 1 A01 01 JB code 479100741 Marta Mignini Mignini, Marta Marta Mignini Catholic University of Milan 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/479100741 01 eng 30 00

In this paper the concepts of dialogic interaction, of circular communication and the role of logic and emotions will receive special attention. In the first part of my manuscript I will show that banks’ annual reports are a two-way communication where two heterogeneous subjects exchange information, and feed-back from them is crucial for a success. In the second part I will focus on the coexistence of logic and rhetoric in annual reports, which have often been considered linguistically distant from everyday interaction. To do this, I will provide examples of devices like the order of elements conveying positive or negative ideas, rhetorical questions, repetitions, metaphors and appeals directed at stakeholders. The third and last part of my paper will stress the importance of emotional linguistic tools with particular reference to the concepts of “central” and “peripheral” routes to persuasion (Petty et al. 1994).

01 01 JB code ds.2.18oza 06 10.1075/ds.2.18oza 221 233 13 Article 18 01 04 Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates Attention-influencing as a rhetorical strategy in German and Turkish Parliamentary debates 1 A01 01 JB code 78100742 Didem Ozan Ozan, Didem Didem Ozan University of Münster 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/78100742 01 eng 30 00

Rhetoric as the art of using human communicative abilities effectively in order to promote individual or collective interests is a permanent and inherent feature of dialogue as a mixed game. In parliamentary debates, influencing attention is used as a rhetorical strategy. Speakers anticipate their audience’s as well as the public’s perception. They target and influence the direction and intensity of attention in various political domains. Politicians have to mediate between institutional functions and roles and their electorate’s expectations. If they do this, they can easily get into conflicts of interest. In October 2004, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdoğan and the then German Foreign Minister Joseph Fischer declared their positions regarding the scheduled accession of Turkey to the European Union. Two sample analyses are taken from their speeches given during two national parliamentary debates. Rhetorical strategies dependent on different cultural conditions were used by these political leaders to shift attention from internal conflicts which could weaken their position.

01 01 JB code ds.2.19min 06 10.1075/ds.2.19min 235 250 16 Article 19 01 04 Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia Diatexts of media dilemmas: The rhetorical construction of euthanasia 1 A01 01 JB code 282100743 Giuseppe Mininni Mininni, Giuseppe Giuseppe Mininni University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/282100743 2 A01 01 JB code 805100744 Amelia Manuti Manuti, Amelia Amelia Manuti University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/805100744 3 A01 01 JB code 21100745 Rossella Rubino Rubino, Rossella Rossella Rubino University of Bari 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/21100745 01 eng 30 00

In the post-modern era the global conscience has to deal with various dilemmas, which are made more complex by media interaction. These issues mostly pertain to the bioethical sphere of human experience, i.e. the discursive sphere linked to the necessity to overcome any interpretative routine of marked separation between ‘public’ and ‘private’. A specific effect of such an enunciative claim can be seen in the social debate on euthanasia recently hosted by the media since through subtle argumentative strategies it focuses on different interpretative repertoires of the dignity of human life. The present paper aims to discuss the results of a qualitative study, the aim of which is to investigate certain segments of the “dialogue about euthanasia”, collected from the Italian media (press, television, internet). Diatextual analysis has been adopted as a methodological tool to highlight the recurrence of specific rhetorical assets of both pro and contra positions.

01 01 JB code ds.2.20kja 06 10.1075/ds.2.20kja 251 266 16 Article 20 01 04 Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse Recontextualization of concepts in European legal discourse 1 A01 01 JB code 525100746 Anne Lise Kjær Kjær, Anne Lise Anne Lise Kjær University of Copenhagen 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/525100746 01 eng 30 00

This paper falls within the research field of legal linguistics. The subject is a question of great concern in current comparative legal research: Is it possible to develop a common legal language in the European Union, given the cultural and linguistic plurality of Europe? I argue that it is. What it requires is a common legal discourse and the development of a common European interpretive community. A key mechanism of this development is the recontextualization of legal concepts , i.e. the circulation of concepts among and across the national and international interpretive communities of the European Union accompanied by the discursive interactions of the legal actors at national and supranational levels of EU law. The contribution provides one element in a wider discourse analytical framework for the study of the paradox of ‘unity in diversity’ inherent in the ambition of developing a common legal language in Europe.

01 01 JB code ds.2.21che 06 10.1075/ds.2.21che 267 281 15 Article 21 01 04 A court judgment as dialogue A court judgment as dialogue 1 A01 01 JB code 754100747 Le Cheng Cheng, Le Le Cheng City University of Hong Kong 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/754100747 2 A01 01 JB code 313100748 King Kui Sin Sin, King Kui King Kui Sin City University of Hong Kong 07 https://benjamins.com/catalog/persons/313100748 01 eng 30 00

Dialogue is of cardinal importance in maintaining the interpersonal relationship between judges and facilitating judgment drafting as collaborative problem solving. It is also important for the check and balance between courts and the legislature. A court judgment can therefore be taken as a dialogue between judges as well as that between courts and the legislature. Based on the analysis of some judgments in Hong Kong, the purpose of the paper is to exemplify rhetorical preferences of the dialogue and to unravel the underlying pragmatic rationale. The paper further identifies rhetorical strategies such as modality and intertextuality as creating space for dialogue.

01 01 JB code ds.2.22par 06 10.1075/ds.2.22par 283 283 1 Section header 22 01 04 Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation Part III. Round table discussion: Concepts of rhetoric, dialogue and argumentation 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.23rou 06 10.1075/ds.2.23rou 285 307 23 Article 23 01 04 Round table discussion Round table discussion 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.24gen 06 10.1075/ds.2.24gen 309 313 5 Miscellaneous 24 01 04 General Index General Index 01 eng 01 01 JB code ds.2.25lis 06 10.1075/ds.2.25lis 315 316 2 Miscellaneous 25 01 04 List of Contributors List of Contributors 01 eng
01 JB code JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 01 JB code JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/ds.2 Amsterdam NL 00 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 04 01 00 20081009 C 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company D 2008 John Benjamins Publishing Company 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027210197 WORLD 09 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 https://jbe-platform.com 29 https://jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027290823 21 01 00 Unqualified price 02 105.00 EUR 01 00 Unqualified price 02 88.00 GBP GB 01 00 Unqualified price 02 158.00 USD