Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 4

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  strategic maneuvering
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Confrontational Argumentative Strategies in the Discourse of Foreign Policy Experts

100%
Allani S.
Research in Language
|
2019
|
vol. 17
|
issue 1
39-55
EN
The aim of this study is to explore the discursive practices of foreign policy experts. While policy decisions involving war and peace keep people alarmed all over the globe, most of these decisions are shaped by policy experts who work on influencing public opinion through the media (Manheim, 2011). This study adopts a critical discursive stance and uses argumentation analysis to examine the ideological backdrop to the discourse of thirty opinion articles authored by American foreign policy experts in print media. Drawing on the Pragma-dialectical method of augmentation analysis (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004), and more particularly on its notion of strategic maneuvering, the analysis examines the confrontational strategies used by this group of experts and attempts to determine the rhetorical goals pursued by these strategic maneuvers.
2

Being Reasonable

100%
Botting D.
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
|
2015
|
vol. 42
|
issue 1
17-36
EN
Where do the rules of critical discussion get their normative force? What kinds of norms are involved? Unreasonable behaviour in the critical discussion - e.g., continuing to assert the contradictory of a proven standpoint, performing some action pragmatically inconsistent with a proven standpoint, or the same with regard to the starting-points agreed to in the opening stage - is liable to moral sanction. Thus, a moral/ethical norm is involved and the rules must have a moral force. Pragma-dialectics as it stands does not seem to account for this moral force. I will attempt to fill this gap in pragma-dialectical theory.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Ad hominem and false analogy abuses in a Romanian intellectual debate

100%
Pănoiu V.-M.
ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal
|
2022
|
vol. 12
|
issue 1
59-74
EN
A pragma-dialectical inside view of a Romanian intellectual debate is meant to unveil strategic maneuvering and fallacies, in a public sphere said to be dominated by “status groups”, “backstage maneuvers” and “conspiracy”. A book written by a Romanian author sparked off an area of disagreement leading to ad hominem attacks and false analogies ranging from postcommunist issues to political correctness.
4

Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability

86%
Andone C.
Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
|
2014
|
vol. 36
|
issue 1
59-78
EN
In this paper, the author examines the burden of proof in the argu- mentative confrontations taking part in practices of political accountability. She does so by explaining how politicians maneuver strategically with the burden of proof in an attempt at winning the discussion in which they are involved. After making clear the role of the burden of proof in defining the difference of opinion in argumentative confrontations, the author outlines the constraints imposed by practices of political accountability on the burden of proof. Finally, she analyzes in detail a concrete case in which a politician maneuvers in such a way that his burden of proof is significantly diminished.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.