Political Argumentation in Early America
Informal Fallacies in Selected Debates 1789 to 1800
Buch in deiner Nähe kaufen
Beschreibung
This book investigates the language used by protagonists in four major political debates in the early history of the United States. The first of these concerns the controversy in the first United States House of Representatives in the summer of 1789 on whether a proposal for a bill of rights should be considered in an expeditious fashion or whether the issue should be left till much later. The second is the principal debate on whether a sedition act should be enacted in July 1798, and the third concerns the enactment of the Logan Act of 1799. The fourth investigates the elections for the Legislature of the State of New York in the spring of 1800, which was the key event affecting the outcome of the presidential election of 1800. In each case there was a sharp disagreement between groups of politicians representing different points of view, and each event was significant from the point of view of the political history of the United States. The authors introduce these four debates, as well as the notion of informal fallacy - taken to designate an argument that is unsatisfactory in some way - before analysing deceptive fallacies and demonstrating how fallacy theory can be used as a critical tool in the examination of political argumentation. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of political communication, rhetoric and argumentation, US history and politics, and diachronic linguistics, especially diachronic pragmatics.
Juhani Rudanko is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at Tampere University, Finland. He has written books and articles on the system of English predicate complementation, including Complementation and Case Grammar (1989) and Changes in Complementation in British and American English (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), and on the application of diachronic pragmatics and fallacy theory to the language of political argumentation in early American history, including Discourses of Freedom of Speech (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
Paul Rickman is University Instructor in English Language at the University of Tampere, Finland. His research interests include complementation, New Zealand English, phonetics, English accent variation, corpus linguistics, and historical pragmatics, and he has published on a number of these topics. His first book-length publication (Corpus-Based Studies on Non-Finite Complements in Recent English, 2018) was one of several collaborative projects with Juhani Rudanko.
This book investigates the language used by protagonists in four major political debates in the early history of the United States. The first of these concerns the controversy in the first United States House of Representatives in the summer of 1789 on whether a proposal for a bill of rights should be considered in an expeditious fashion or whether the issue should be left till much later. The second is the principal debate on whether a sedition act should be enacted in July 1798, and the third concerns the enactment of the Logan Act of 1799. The fourth investigates the elections for the Legislature of the State of New York in the spring of 1800, which was the key event affecting the outcome of the presidential election of 1800. In each case there was a sharp disagreement between groups of politicians representing different points of view, and each event was significant from the point of view of the political history of the United States. The authors introduce these four debates, as well as the notion of informal fallacy - taken to designate an argument that is unsatisfactory in some way - before analysing deceptive fallacies and demonstrating how fallacy theory can be used as a critical tool in the examination of political argumentation. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of political communication, rhetoric and argumentation, US history and politics, and diachronic linguistics, especially diachronic pragmatics.
Explores connections between seminal debates in early American politics and pragmatic aspects of argumentation Shows that there is a need to pay attention to the role of covert intentions in the analysis of the language of politics Sheds new light on the application of the concept of narrative in the analysis of a crucial US election campaign
Autor*in
Juhani Rudanko
Themen in »Political Argumentation in Early America«
diachronic pragmatics political history political argumentation fallacy theory Sedition Act Logan Act Bill of Rights James Madison Congressional debates Federalists Republicans