Rhetorical argumentation and political symbolization

 
PIIS086904990011390-1-1
DOI10.7868/S0869049918030127
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Adviser
Affiliation: Chairman of the Moscow Confederation of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (Employers)
Address: 39, Malaya Grusinskaya st., Moscow, 123557
Journal nameObshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost
EditionIssue 3
Pages163-176
Abstract

The article sheds the light upon theoretical analysis of the political argumentation as a mechanism of political meanings’ production, declared, displayed and articulated during political deliberation process. Language used in political argumentation is considered to be а political communicative action itself rather than just a reflection of а political processes. The complex of rhetorical techniques is conceptualized as а political mechanism, capable of an autonomous self-production, making new ideas and beliefs out of the argumentation logic itself. The last is characterized by a deliberate specification as a cognitive political activity, aimed at new political meanings construction. Therefore, in political context a category is no longer an element of a cognitive process, but a rhetoric phenomena. The notion of the fact in relation to political rhetoric argumentation is not so easily determined. It is more appropriate to use the notion of the rhetoric political situation as a phenomenon of the political reality in its essence.

Keywordspolitical symbolization, rhetoric, political argumentation, rhetoric political analysis, rhetoric political situation
Received10.06.2018
Publication date10.06.2018
Number of characters1290
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 354

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Aristotle (1978) Ritorika [Rhetoric]. Antichnye ritoriki [Ancient rhetoric]. Moscow: Labirint, pp. 15–164.

2. Billig M. (1996) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.

3. Billig M. (1991) Ideology and Opinions. London: SAGE.

4. Burman E., Parker I. (1993) Discourse Analytic Research. London: Routledge.

5. Chilton P.A. (1998) Politics and Language. Concise Encyclopaedia of Pragmatics. London: Elsevier, pp. 688–694.

6. Condor S., Abell J. (2006) Vernacular Accounts of National Identity in Post-devolution Scotland and England. Devolution and Identity. Ed. J. Wilson, K. Stapleton. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 51–76.

7. Condor S., Tileagă C., Billig M. (2013) Political Rhetoric. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Ed.L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, J.S. Levy. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 262–297.

8. Converse P. (1964) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. Ideology and Discontent. Еd.D. Apter. New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.

9. Delli Carpini M., Keeter S. (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.

10. Dryzek J.S. (2010) Rhetoric in Democracy. Political Theory, no. 38, pp. 319–339.

11. Edwards D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: SAGE.

12. Fairclough N. (2001) Language and Power. London: Longman.

13. Fairclough N. (2000) New Labour, New Language? London: Routledge.

14. Finlayson A. (2006) For the Sake of Argument: Re-imagining Political Communication. Soundings, no. 44, pp. 34–43.

15. Finlayson A. (2007) From Beliefs to Arguments: Interpretative Methodology and Rhetorical Political Analysis. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, no. 9, pp. 545–563.

16. Finlayson A., Martin J. (2008). “It aren’t what you say…”: British political studies and the analysis of speech and rhetoric. British Politics, no. 3, pp. 445–464.

17. Fortescue W. (2000) The Third Republic in France, 1870–1940: Conflicts and Continuities. London, New York: Routledge.

18. Garsten B. (2011) The Rhetoric Revival in Political Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, no. 14, pp. 159–180.

19. Harré R., Gillett G. (1994) The Discursive Mind. London: SAGE.

20. Jost J.T., Federico C.M., Napier J.L. (2009) Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions and Elective Affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, no. 60, pp. 307–337.

21. Musikhin G.I. (2015a) Konceptualizaciya politicheskoj simvolizacii [Conceptualization of political symbolization]. POLIS. Politicheskie issledovaniya, no. 5, pp. 130–144.

22. Musikhin G.I. (2016) Politicheskaya ritorika kak kvazisimvolizaciya? [Political rhetoric as quasisymbolization?]. Sociologicheskoe obozrenie, no. 2, pp. 66–86.

23. Musikhin G.I. (2015b) Simvolizaciya kak kontekstual’nyj sintez politicheskoj ontologii, politicheskoj ehpistemologii i politicheskogo yazyka [Symbolization as a contextual synthesis of political ontology, political epistemology and political language]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost’, no. 6, pp. 45–57.

24. Potter J. (2000) Post-cognitive Psychology. Theory & Psychology, no. 10, pp. 31–37.

25. Potter J. (1997) Representing Reality. London: SAGE.

26. Reicher S., Hopkins N. (2001) Self and Nation. London: SAGE.

27. Rosch E. (1978) Principles of Categorization. Cognition and categorization. Ed.E. Rosch, B.B. Lloyd. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 27–48.

28. Shotter J. (1993) Conversational Realities: Constructing Life Through Language. London: SAGE.

29. Shmitt K. (1992) Ponyatie politicheskogo [The concept of political]. Voprosy sociologii, vol. 1, pp. 35–67.

30. Thompson M., Verweij M., Ellis R.J. (2006) Why and How Culture Matters. The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, pp. 319–340.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up