Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- References -- Chapter 2: Opposition to Amending the Constitution in a Congressional Debate in 1789 -- 2.1 Introduction and Background -- 2.2 Opposition to Madison's Motion on June 8, 1789 -- 2.3 Comparing the Argumentation of Madison's Opponents -- 2.4 Defining the Fallacy of ad socordiam -- 2.5 Concluding Observations -- References -- Chapter 3: Edward Livingston's Resolution for Negotiating with France in July 1798 -- 3.1 Background -- 3.2 Edward Livingston's Resolution and Kittera's Amendment -- 3.3 Concluding Observations -- References -- Chapter 4: Arguing for the Sedition Act in the Debate of July 5, 1798 -- 4.1 Background -- 4.2 The Debate of July 5, 1798: Allen and Harper on the Offensive -- 4.3 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 5: Debating the Expulsion of Matthew Lyon in February 1799 -- 5.1 Introduction -- 5.2 The Debates of February 20 and February 22, 1799 to Expel Matthew Lyon -- 5.3 Concluding Observations -- References -- Chapter 6: Conclusion -- References -- Index.

This book implements a new approach to the study of manipulative tactics in selected Congressional debates in the early history of the United States, highlighting the ways in which language can be used to manipulate an audience. The identification and analysis of different informal fallacies is central in the approach adopted by the authors, and they privilege the role of covert intentions as a frequent ingredient of manipulation. They also show how different speakers can use different subtypes of the same fallacy in a debate, and investigate the tension between the policy preferences and goals of politicians, and existing laws. The book has been written without jargon, all concepts and terminology from the field of linguistic pragmatics are clearly defined, and it is accessible to the interested layperson wishing to become familiar with manipulative techniques in political rhetoric.