Comments on ‘Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation’
Abstract
In this paper, David Zarefsky suggests some constraints that political arguers face when trying to persuade an audience, and discusses some of the devices with which they respond to these constraints. In his treatment of these devices Zarefsky makes use of the concept of strategic manoeuvring as proposed by van Eemeren and Houtlosser. By taking into account the three manifestations of strategic manoeuvring-topical potential, audience adaptation and an effective presentation (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002, p. 139)-he identifies and discusses several possible ways of dealing with these situational constraints. Regarding the 'activity type' (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2005) of political argumentation, Zarefsky focuses on large and open-ended public debates that engage entire societies. He rightfully indicates that it seems strange to consider these kinds of political argumentation as a specific kind of institutionalised discourse: political argumentation is in principle unregulated, free-form and requires no technical expertise of its participants in the discussion. In order to be able to discuss strategic manoeuvring within this kind of political context, characteristics of political argument need first to be specified. Zarefsky mentions four characteristics that can be of help to define the genre and to establish its conventions. In these comments, I will focus on the first part of the paper, which is about these characteristics of political argumentation: as a supplement to Zarefsky's paper, I will give a tentative analysis of how the four characteristics mentioned constrain the possibilities to manoeuvre strategically. 76-77). The activity type, therefore, may
- Journal
- Argumentation
- Published
- 2008-08-01
- DOI
- 10.1007/s10503-008-9101-3
- CompPile
- Search in CompPile ↗
- Open Access
- OA PDF Hybrid
- Topics
- Export
- BibTeX RIS
Citation Context
Cited by in this index (0)
No articles in this index cite this work.
Cites in this index (1)
-
Zarefsky (2007)Argumentation
Also cites 1 work outside this index ↓
-
F.H. Eemeren van (2002)Dialectic and rhetoric: the warp and woof of argumentation analysis
Related Articles
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Sep 2024Joshua Hananmodern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism composition theory genre theory discourse analysis cultural rhetorics argument qualitative research quantitative research digital rhetoric social media grammar and mechanics gender and writing disability studies public rhetoric affect and writing body and rhetoric editorial matter
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Jun 2024Catherine L. Langfordrhetorical criticism genre theory discourse analysis feminist rhetorics cultural rhetorics decolonial rhetorics graduate education argument empirical research qualitative research race and writing gender and writing disability studies public rhetoric affect and writing body and rhetoric editorial matter
-
Rhetoric & Public Affairs Mar 2022Jacob Justice
-
Pedagogy Jan 2022modern rhetorical theory rhetorical criticism genre theory discourse analysis african american rhetorics decolonial rhetorics first-year composition writing pedagogy basic writing writing across the curriculum graduate education teacher development argument collaborative writing transfer assessment portfolios writing program administration writing centers peer tutoring technical communication professional writing archival research digital rhetoric social media grammar and mechanics literacy studies race and writing gender and writing disability studies public rhetoric community literacy literary studies editorial matter
-
Philosophy & Rhetoric Jul 2013Kathleen Lamp