Page 127 - 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. 127
the acts and strategies of defining 127
Table 6: Implicit definitions – Dialectical profile
Obama performs this move to commit himself and the interlocu-
tors to the redefinition of “hostility”. In this case, Obama could not have
stipulated explicitly such a definition, as he has not the authority to do
so, nor could he have advanced it, as the nature of his act of defending a
standpoint requires the previous acceptance of the definition.
Obama’s move is extremely powerful from a dialogical perspec-
tive. He is inserting into the interlocutors’ commitment store a proposi-
tion that they could not possibly have shared (and we know this because
Obama stipulated the new meaning). Moreover, contrary to the act of
advancing a definition, he did not have the burden of proof here. The di-
alogical outcome of his move is to shift the burden of proof. The inter-
locutors become committed to a proposition they never accepted, and
they carry the burden of rejecting this commitment. They need to prove
that the definition is not part of their common ground. In this case, the
Members of Congress had to prove that the definition was not the ac-
cepted one, which became extremely difficult, as there is not a legal defi-
nition of the concept in the act. Obama, instead of advancing arguments
to support an extremely controversial point of view, played the defensive
role, consisting in assessing the acceptability of the rebuttals. The im-
plicit redefinition changes the dialogical roles of the participants to the
Table 6: Implicit definitions – Dialectical profile
Obama performs this move to commit himself and the interlocu-
tors to the redefinition of “hostility”. In this case, Obama could not have
stipulated explicitly such a definition, as he has not the authority to do
so, nor could he have advanced it, as the nature of his act of defending a
standpoint requires the previous acceptance of the definition.
Obama’s move is extremely powerful from a dialogical perspec-
tive. He is inserting into the interlocutors’ commitment store a proposi-
tion that they could not possibly have shared (and we know this because
Obama stipulated the new meaning). Moreover, contrary to the act of
advancing a definition, he did not have the burden of proof here. The di-
alogical outcome of his move is to shift the burden of proof. The inter-
locutors become committed to a proposition they never accepted, and
they carry the burden of rejecting this commitment. They need to prove
that the definition is not part of their common ground. In this case, the
Members of Congress had to prove that the definition was not the ac-
cepted one, which became extremely difficult, as there is not a legal defi-
nition of the concept in the act. Obama, instead of advancing arguments
to support an extremely controversial point of view, played the defensive
role, consisting in assessing the acceptability of the rebuttals. The im-
plicit redefinition changes the dialogical roles of the participants to the
