15 found
Order:
Disambiguations
David Zarefsky [20]David H. Zarefsky [1]
  1.  65
    Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation.David Zarefsky - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):317-330.
    Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  2.  34
    Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric. [REVIEW]David Zarefsky - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):399-416.
    Persuasive definitions – those that convey an attitude in the act of naming – are frequently employed in discourse and are a form of strategic maneuvering. The dynamics of persuasive definition are explored through brief case studies and an extended analysis of the use of the “war” metaphor in responding to terrorism after September 11, 2001. Examining persuasive definitions enables us to notice similarities and differences between strategic maneuvering in dialectical and in rhetorical argument, as well as differences between the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  3. The Practice of Argumentation: Effective Reasoning in Communication.David Zarefsky - 2019 - Cambridge University Press.
    This book uses different perspectives on argumentation to show how we create arguments, test them, attack and defend them, and deploy them effectively to justify beliefs and influence others. David Zarefsky uses a range of contemporary examples to show how arguments work and how they can be put together, beginning with simple individual arguments, and proceeding to the construction and analysis of complex cases incorporating different structures. Special attention is given to evaluating evidence and reasoning, the building blocks of argumentation. (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  7
    Review of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. [REVIEW]David H. Zarefsky - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (1):139-146.
    This article reviews Frans H. van Eemeren’s Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  26
    What Does an Argument Culture Look Like?David Zarefsky - 2009 - Informal Logic 29 (3):296-308.
    A strong argument culture is characterized by at least five productive tensions, between: commitment and contingency, partisanship and restraint, personal conviction and sensitivity to the audience, reasonableness and subjectivity, and decision and non-closure. Differences in how communities manage these tensions explain why there are multiple argument cultures and, hence, why we need to understand arguing both within and among different cultures. The paper elaborates these five productive tensions, offers some examples of argument cultures that negotiate them in various ways, and (...)
    Direct download (13 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  5
    Underlying Assumptions of Examining Argumentation Rhetorically.David Zarefsky - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-13.
    Argumentation is the offspring of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Differences among them are matters more of degree than of kind, but each reflects basic underlying assumptions. This essay explicates five key assumptions of rhetorical approaches to argumentation: audience assent is the ultimate measure of an argument’s success or failure; argumentation takes place within a context of uncertainty, both about the subject of the dispute and about the process for conducting the dispute; arguers function as restrained partisans and accept risks that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. History of Public Discourse Studies.David Zarefsky - 2009 - In A. Lunsford, K. Wilson & R. Eberly (eds.), Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Sage Publications.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  2
    Underlying Assumptions of Examining Argumentation Rhetorically.David Zarefsky - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-13.
    Argumentation is the offspring of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Differences among them are matters more of degree than of kind, but each reflects basic underlying assumptions. This essay explicates five key assumptions of rhetorical approaches to argumentation: audience assent is the ultimate measure of an argument’s success or failure; argumentation takes place within a context of uncertainty, both about the subject of the dispute and about the process for conducting the dispute; arguers function as restrained partisans and accept risks that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  9.  22
    Willard's A Theory of Argumentation.David Zarefsky - 1991 - Informal Logic 13 (3).
  10.  17
    Comments on 'Strategic Maneuvering in Question Time in the British House of Commons'.David Zarefsky - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (3):395-397.
    Although political argumentation is not institutionalized in a formal sense, it does have recurrent patterns and characteristics. Its constraints include the absence of time limits, the lack of a clear terminus, heterogeneous audiences, and the assumption that access is open to all. These constraints make creative strategic maneuvering both possible and necessary. Among the common types of strategic maneuvering are changing the subject, modifying the relevant audience, appealing to liberal and conservative presumptions, reframing the argument, using condensation symbols, employing the (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  1
    Underlying Assumptions of Examining Argumentation Rhetorically.David Zarefsky - forthcoming - Argumentation:1-13.
    Argumentation is the offspring of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Differences among them are matters more of degree than of kind, but each reflects basic underlying assumptions. This essay explicates five key assumptions of rhetorical approaches to argumentation: audience assent is the ultimate measure of an argument’s success or failure; argumentation takes place within a context of uncertainty, both about the subject of the dispute and about the process for conducting the dispute; arguers function as restrained partisans and accept risks that (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  22
    Obituary: Michael Leff (1941–2010). [REVIEW]David Zarefsky - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (3):403-404.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  4
    Philosophy and Rhetoric in Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.David Zarefsky - 2012 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 45 (2):165.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  6
    Public Discourse is Situated Rhetorical Prac-Tice. It is the Product of a Rhetorical Trans-Action in the Context of a Particular Situation. The Situation is a Set of Circumstances Present-Ing Opportunities and Constraints, and the Dis-Course Exhibits the Ways in Which Rhetors and Audiences Respond to Them. [REVIEW]David Zarefsky - 2009 - In A. Lunsford, K. Wilson & R. Eberly (eds.), Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. Sage Publications. pp. 433.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics. Edited by Frans H. Van Eemeren and Wu Peng.David Zarefsky - 2020 - Journal of Argumentation in Context 9 (2).
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark