Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements

Authors

  • Fabrizio Macagno
  • Douglas Walton

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i3.594

Keywords:

clarification dialogues, communication failure, conflicts of meanings, conflicts of values, emotive meaning, quasi-definitions, value-based argumentation

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to inquire into the relationship between persuasive definition and common knowledge (propositions generally accepted and not subject to dispute in a discussion). We interpret the gap between common knowledge and persuasive definition (PD) in terms of potential disagreements: PDs are conceived as implicit arguments to win a potential conflict. Persuasive definitions are analyzed as arguments instantiating two argumentation schemes, argument from classification and argument from values, and presupposing a potential disagreement. The argumentative structure of PDs reveals different levels of disagreement, and different pos-sibilities of resolving the conflict or causing dialogical deadlock.

Downloads

Published

2008-09-02

Issue

Vol. 28 No. 3 (2008)

Section

Articles

License

Copyright for each article published in Informal Logic belongs to its author(s). Informal Logic has the right of first publication. Permission to reprint any article that appears in Informal Logic MUST be obtained in writing from the author(s). In addition to any form of acknowledgement required by the author(s), the following notice must be added to the statement of copyright permission made in the reprint (with the appropriate numbers replacing the ellipses): [Article Title] was originally published in Informal Logic, [year], Volume ..., Number ..., pp. ...-... .