Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 8:2 (2018) ► pp.209–234

Definition as an argumentative strategy in parliamentary discourse

A cross-cultural and comparative approach

 | “Iorgu Iordan – Al. Rosetti” Institute of Linguistics of the Romanian Academy
The present paper aims to investigate the main argumentative uses of definitions in various communicative contexts of the parliamentary discourse, on the basis of two sets of data, selected from the British and the Romanian Parliaments. Relevant categories of argumentative definitions are identified and described, by taking into consideration their linguistic structure and rhetorical features, as well as their current association with other types of arguments and pragmatic strategies. The cross-cultural and comparative perspective allows us to grasp to what extent the institutional forms, procedural rules and cultural models can actually influence the argumentative choices and reasoning patterns in the specific cases of the British and the Romanian Parliamentary discourse.
Keywords: definition, argumentative strategy, descriptive and emotional meanings, parliamentary discourse, cross-cultural research
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Theoretical framework
    • 1.2Aim, method, corpus
  • 2.Definition in the UK Parliamentary discourse
    • 2.1Conceptual dissociative definitions. Definition as an authoritative argument
    • 2.2Defining ethical words. Negative (implicit) definition
    • 2.3Defining in interaction (Adjacency pairs Questions-Answers)
      • 2.3.1Defining as a part of the act of refutation. Polemical quotations, reformulation
      • 2.3.2Defining identity. Ironical turns
      • 2.3.3Metaphorical definitions. Amplifying the agreement
      • 2.3.4Definition as a discursive premise. The framing argument
    • 2.4Legal definitions. Metadiscourse. Stipulative/statutory definitions
  • 3.Definition in the Romanian Parliamentary discourse
    • 3.1Polemical conceptual definition. Im/politeness strategy
    • 3.2Defining identity. Argument by polemical quotation of a (metaphorical) definition
    • 3.3Defining identity. Metaphorical definition. Definition as a dissociation strategy
    • 3.4Defining identity. Ironical response. Implicit definition
    • 3.5Speculative/persuasive definitions. Didactic/deductive use of definitions
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
  • Sources
Published online: 12 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00013.hoi
References (49)
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Translated by W. Rhys Roberts, ed. by W. D. Ross. Cover copyright by Cosimo Classics. New York, 2010 (originally published in The Works of Aristotle, vol. IX1, ed. by W. D. Ross. London: Oxford University Press, 1910–1931).Google Scholar
Bayley, Paul. 2004. “Introduction. The Whys and Wherefores of Analysing Parliamentary discourse. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 1–44. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breton, Philippe. 2003. L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Charles, David (ed). 2010. Definition in Greek Philosophy. Oxford. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics 251: 349–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Impoliteness strategies”. In Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey, 421–445. Cham/Heidelberg/New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. “Esquisse d’une théorie polyphonique de l’énonciation.” In Le dire et le dit, ed. by Oswald Ducrot, 171–233. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
. 1991. Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Hestir, Blake E. 2016. Plato on the Metaphysical Foundation on Meaning and Truth. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohmann, Hans. 2000. “Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives.” Argumentation 14(3): 223–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2003. “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse”. Studies in Communication Sciences 3(1): 25–53.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Parliamentary Discourses.” In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown. 2nd edition, vol. 91, 188–197. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Strategies of Refutation by Definition. A Pragma-Rethorical Approach to Refutations in a Public Speech.” In Pondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 35–51. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed). 2010a. “Introduction.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Managing dissent and interpersonal relations in the Romanian parliamentary discourse.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 193–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana. 2012. “The Historicity of Democracy.” In Parliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Melania Roibu, and Mihaela-Viorica Constantinescu, 197–208. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2005. Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kublikowski, Robert. 2009. “Definition within the Structure of Argumentation.” Studies in Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric 16(29): 229–244.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. “The Dialectical-Dialogical Definitions.” L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria XVI(1): 443–461.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Definitions in Law.” Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée 21: 199–217.Google Scholar
. 2014. “Presupposing Redefinitions.” In Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman, and Steve Oswald, 249–278. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio and Walton Douglas. 2008. “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic 28(3): 203–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio and Giovanni Damele. 2015. “The Hidden Acts of Definition in Law: Statutory Definitions and Burden of Persuasion.” In Logic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking, ed. by Michał Araszkiewicz and Krysztof Płeszka, 225–251. Cham/Heidelberg: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1971. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2015. “Split Voices in Political Discourse.” Language and Dialogue 5(3): 430–448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 1993. “Arguing about Definitions.” Argumentation 7(4): 403–417. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Toward a Pragmatic Approach to Definition: ’Wetlands’ and the politics of meaning.” In Environmental Pragmatics, ed. by Andrew Light and Eric Katz, 209–230. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2003. Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, Elena. 2008. Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1981. “Irony and the Use – Mention Distinction.” In Radical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole, 295–318. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stevenson, Charles L. 1938. “Persuasive Definitions.” Mind 47(187): 331–350. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treimane, Laura. 2011. “Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse: Systemic Functional Perspective”. Kalbotyra 63(3): 78–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2004. “Text and Context of Parliamentary Debates.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 339–372. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2001. “Persuasive Definitions and Public Policy Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy 371: 117–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas and Fabrizio Macagno. 2011. “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic 31(1): 27–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2009. “The Dialogic Principle Revisited: Speech Acts and Mental States.” In Language as Dialogue, ed. by Sebastian Feller, 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, David. 1998. “Definitions.” In Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, ed. by James Klumpp, 1–11. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definitions”. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3): 607–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation 20(4): 399–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation: Selected Essays by David Zarefsky, New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sources
Camera Deputaților a Parlamentului României (Recorded Parliamentary debates) [URL]
Carp = Petre P. Carp. 2000. Discursuri parlamentare [1909], Bucureşti: Grai şi Suflet. Cultura Naţională.Google Scholar
Maiorescu = Titu Maiorescu. 2006. Opere, III, Discursuri parlamentare (1866–1899). Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă, Bucureşti: Univers Enciclopedic.Google Scholar
The United Kingdom Parliament Home Page (Hansard records): [URL]