Page 117 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 117
the acts and strategies of defining 117
4. The Acts of Defining
Redefinitions can be extremely powerful and sometimes dangerous
instruments. By modifying the definition of a word, the speaker can al-
ter the interlocutor’s perception and evaluation of reality. He can dis-
tort reality and the appraisal thereof. However, definitions and redefini-
tions are extremely common moves, often necessary for clarifying new
or obscure concepts or highlighting some of their dimensions. The cru-
cial problem lies in the identification of a criterion for distinguishing
deceitful definitional moves from the non-fallacious or simply persua-
sive ones. As noticed above, not only are there several definitions for the
same definiendum, but there are also different ways of defining the same
concept. In order to analyze the boundaries of definitions and redefini-
tions, it is necessary to shift from a propositional to a pragmatic level.
Definitions can be fallacious or acceptable because they are acts, moves
in a discourse. Definitions can have different purposes: they can be in-
struments for informing, imposing a meaning, or advancing a view-
point. Accordingly, they are subject to different pragmatic conditions.
4.1. Definitions as Reminders
In his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address, Obama needed to ar-
gue in favour of an extremely complex position: the president of a state
engaged in different wars all over the world should be considered as the
clearest champion of peace. In order to support this claim, at the begin-
ning of his speech he underscores a fundamental principle that his audi-
ence should be acquainted with: wars can be justified. For this purpose,
he reminds his audience of the concept and meaning of “just war” (Ba-
rack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address, Oslo, Norway De-
cember 10, 2009):
Definition as a piece of information or a reminder: “peace”
The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only
when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-de-
fense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are
spared from violence. […]What I do know is that meeting these challeng-
es will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and
women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in
new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
Obama is not advancing a new claim, but bringing to light a com-
mitment that is or should be shared by his interlocutors. Definitions of
basic cultural concepts need to be known by a community of speakers.
4. The Acts of Defining
Redefinitions can be extremely powerful and sometimes dangerous
instruments. By modifying the definition of a word, the speaker can al-
ter the interlocutor’s perception and evaluation of reality. He can dis-
tort reality and the appraisal thereof. However, definitions and redefini-
tions are extremely common moves, often necessary for clarifying new
or obscure concepts or highlighting some of their dimensions. The cru-
cial problem lies in the identification of a criterion for distinguishing
deceitful definitional moves from the non-fallacious or simply persua-
sive ones. As noticed above, not only are there several definitions for the
same definiendum, but there are also different ways of defining the same
concept. In order to analyze the boundaries of definitions and redefini-
tions, it is necessary to shift from a propositional to a pragmatic level.
Definitions can be fallacious or acceptable because they are acts, moves
in a discourse. Definitions can have different purposes: they can be in-
struments for informing, imposing a meaning, or advancing a view-
point. Accordingly, they are subject to different pragmatic conditions.
4.1. Definitions as Reminders
In his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address, Obama needed to ar-
gue in favour of an extremely complex position: the president of a state
engaged in different wars all over the world should be considered as the
clearest champion of peace. In order to support this claim, at the begin-
ning of his speech he underscores a fundamental principle that his audi-
ence should be acquainted with: wars can be justified. For this purpose,
he reminds his audience of the concept and meaning of “just war” (Ba-
rack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Address, Oslo, Norway De-
cember 10, 2009):
Definition as a piece of information or a reminder: “peace”
The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only
when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-de-
fense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are
spared from violence. […]What I do know is that meeting these challeng-
es will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and
women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in
new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
Obama is not advancing a new claim, but bringing to light a com-
mitment that is or should be shared by his interlocutors. Definitions of
basic cultural concepts need to be known by a community of speakers.
