Styles of Rejection in Local Public Argument on Iraq

Argumentation

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 423-452

  Dimock, Aaron ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT KEARNEY   (United States)

Author keywords

Argumentation; Discourse analysis; Iraq; Public deliberation; Style; War

Indexed keywords

EID: 77958017151     PISSN: 0920427X     EISSN: 15728374     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9175-6     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Anderson, P. A., and T. R. Blackburn. 2004. An experimental study of language intensity and response rate in e mail surveys. Communication Reports 17: 73-84.
2. Asen, R. 2004. A discourse theory of citizenship. Quarterly Journal of Speech 90: 189-211.
3. Austin, J. L. 1999. How to do things with words. In The discourse reader, ed. A. Jaworski, and N. Coupland, 63-75. New York: Routledge.
4. Barge, J. K., and J. Keyton. 1994. Contextualizing power and social influence in groups. In Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups, ed. L. R. Frey, 85-105. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Beasley, V. B. 2008. Democratic style: An RSVP. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 466-470.
6. Bilder, R. B. 1989. The role of states and cities in foreign relations. American Journal of International Law 83: 821-831.
7. Black, E. 1978. Rhetorical criticism: A study in method. Madison: University of Wisconsion Press.
8. Bowers, J. W. 1963. Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Speech Monographs 30: 345-352.
9. Bowers, J. W., D. J. Ochs, et al. 1993. The rhetoric of agitation and control. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
10. Brinton, A. 1995. The Ad Hominem. In Fallacies: Classical, contemporary readings, ed. H. V. Hansen, and R. C. Pinto, 213-222. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
11. Chambers, S. 2003. Deliberative democratic theory. Annual Review of Political Science 6: 307-326.
12. Craig, R. 1983. Galilean rhetoric and practical theory. Communication Monographs 50: 395-412.
13. Craig, R. T., and K. Tracy. 2003. 'The issue' in argumentation practice and theory. In The Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, International Center for the Study of Argumentation, eds. van Eemeren F. H., Blair J. A, Willard C. A., and Henkemans A. F. S, 213-218.
14. Craig, R. T., and K. Tracy. 1995. Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory 5: 248-272.
15. Cronen, V. E. 2001. Practical theory, practical art, and the pragmatic-systemic account of inquiry. Communication Theory 11: 14-35.
16. Delicath, J. W., and K. M. DeLuca. 2003. Image events, the public sphere, and argumentative practice: The case of radical environmental groups. Argumentation 17: 315-334.
17. DeLuca, K. M. 1999. Unruly arguments: The body rhetoric of Earth First!, Act Up, and Queer Nation. Argumentation and Advocacy 36: 9-22.
18. DeVito, J. A. 1967. Style and stylistics: An attempt at definition. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 53: 248-255.
19. Dimock, A. (2009). Creating sites for reasonable discourse: Stasis in public deliberation. Speaker and Gavel.
20. Dissoi Logoi. 2001. In The rhetorical tradition: Readings from classical times to the present (trans: Robinson, T. M.), ed. P. Bizzell and B. Herzberg, 48-55. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.
21. Dryzek, J. S. 1990. Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22. Dryzek, J. S. 2001. Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29: 651-669.
23. Dryzek, J. S. 2005. Deliberative democracy in divided societies: Alternatives to agonism and analgesia. Political Theory 33: 218-242.
24. Eliasoph, N. 1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Engels, J. 2008. Some preliminary thoughts on democratic style. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 439-440.
26. Freeman, J. B. 1995. The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In Fallacies: Classical, contemporary readings, ed. H. V. Hansen, and R. C. Pinto, 265-273. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
27. Gastil, J. 1992. Undemocratic discourse: A review of theory and research on political discourse. Discourse and Society 3: 469-500.
28. Grice, H. P. 1999. Logic and conversation. In The discourse reader, ed. A. Jaworski, and N. Coupland, 77-88. New York: Routledge.
29. Gutmann, A. 1993. The disharmony of democracy. In NOMOS XXXV, ed. J. W. Chapman, and I. Shapiro, 126-160. New York: New York University Press.
30. Gutmann, A. 1995. The virtues of democratic self constraint. In New communitarian thinking: Persons, virtues, institutions, and communities, ed. A. Etzioni, 155-169. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
31. Hamilton, M. A., and B. L. Stewart. 1993. Extending an information processing model of language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly 41: 231-246.
32. Hariman, R. 1995. Political style: The artistry of power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33. Hariman, R. 1999. Aversion to and a version of the democratic aesthetic. In Argument at century's end: Reflecting on the past, envisioning the future, ed. T. A. Hollihan, 286-293. Alta: National Communication Association/American Forensic Association.
34. Hariman, R., and J. L. Lucaties. 2001. Dissent and emotional management in a liberal democratic society: The Kent State iconic photograph. Rhetorical Society Quarterly 31: 4-31.
35. Hauser, G. 1999. Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
36. Hauser, G., and C. Benoit-Barne. 2002. Reflections on rhetoric, deliberative democracy, civil society and trust. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 261-275.
37. Heidlebaugh, N. J. 2001. Judgment, rhetoric, and the problem of incommensurability: Recalling practical wisdom. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
38. Hibbing, J., and E. Theiss-Morse. 2002. Stealth democracy: American's beliefs about how government should work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Hicks, D. 2002. The promise(s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 223-260.
40. Hofstadter, R. 1965. The paranoid style in American politics. In The paranoid style in American politics and other essays, 3-40, New York: Alfred A Knopf.
41. Hutchby, I., and R. Woffitt. 1998. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
42. Ivie, R. L. 2002. Rhetorical deliberation and democratic politics in the here and now. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 277-285.
43. Ivie, R. L. 2008. Toward a humanizing style of democratic dissent. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 11: 454-458.
44. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251-265.
45. Jorgensen, C. 1998. Public debate - an act of hostility? Argumentation 12: 431-443.
46. Karpowitz, C. F. 2005. A theory of local public talk and deliberative reform. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
47. Keith, W. 2002. Democratic revival and the promise of cyberspace: Lessons from the forum movement. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 311-326.
48. Kline, S. L. 1979. Toward a contemporary linguistic interpretation of the concept of stasis. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 95-103.
49. Low, D. W. 1996. The greenie genre: Noble saviours or planetary fools. Australian Journal of Communication 23: 101-109.
50. Maddux, K. 2004. When patriots protest: The anti-suffrage discursive transformation of 1917. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 7: 283-310.
51. Mansbridge, J. 1980. Beyond adversary democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
52. Mattson, K. 2002. Do Americans really want deliberative democracy? Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 327-329.
53. McComas, K. A. 2000. Theory and practice of public meetings. Cornell University (Unpublished dissertation).
54. Mendelberg, T., and J. Oleske. 2000. Race and public deliberation. Political Communication 17: 169-191.
55. Mouffe, C. 1999. Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research 66: 745-758.
56. Mouffe, C. 2000. The democratic paradox. New York: Verso.
57. Nock, C. J. 1995. On the dissent theory of political obligation. Polity 28: 141-157.
58. Pellizzoni, L. 2001. The myth of the best argument: Power, deliberation and reason. British Journal of Sociology 52: 59-86.
59. Plein, L. C., K. E. Green, and D. G. Williams. 1998. Organic planning: A new approach to public participation in local governance. The Social Science Journal 35: 509-523.
60. Pomerantz, A. 1986. Extreme case formulations: A way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9: 219-229.
61. Price, D. 2000. Choices without reasons: Citizens' juries and policy evaluation. Journal of Medical Ethics 26: 272-276.
62. Rawls, J. 1997/1999. The idea of public reason revisited, In John Rawls: Collected papers, ed. S. Freeman, 573-615. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
63. Rogan, R. G. 1995. Language intensity: Testing a content-based metric. Communication Reports 8: 128-135.
64. Ryfe, D. M. 2002. The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication 19: 359-377.
65. Scarry, E. 2004. Acts of resistance. Harper's magazine, May: 15-20.
66. Sharp, E. B. 2005. Morality politics in American cities. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
67. Shuman, M. H. 1992. Dateline main street: Courts v. local foreign policies. Foreign Policy 86: 158-178.
68. Shuman, M. H. 1998. Protecting the local globally, In American political science association annual meeting, vol 56. Boston.
69. Sloane, T. O. (ed.). 2001. Encyclopedia of rhetoric. New York: Oxford University Press.
70. Stamou, A. G. 2001. The representation of non-protesters in a student and teacher protest: A critical discourse analysis of news reporting in a Greek newspaper. Discourse and Society 12: 653-680.
71. Tracy, K. 1995. Action-implicative discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14: 195-215.
72. Tracy, K. 1999. The usefulness of platitudes in arguments about conduct. Paper presented at the fourth international conference of the interactional society for the study of argumentation, Amsterdam.
73. Tracy, K. 2008. 'Reasonable hostility': Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 4: 169-191.
74. Tracy, K., and C. Ashcraft. 2001. Crafting policies about controversial values: How wording disputes manage a group dilemma. Journal of Applied Communication 29: 297-316.
75. Tracy, K., and A. Dimock. 2004. Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. Communication Yearbook 28: 127-165.
76. Tracy, K., and C. Standerfer. 2003. Selecting a school superintendent: Sensitivities in group deliberation. In Group communication in context: Studies of natural groups, 2nd ed, ed. L. Frey, 109-134. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
77. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1995. The pragma-dialectical approach to fallacies. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. In Hans V. Hansen, and Robert C. Pinto, 130-144. Pennsylvania: University Park, Pennsylvania State University Press.
78. van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
79. Ware, B. L., and W. A. Linkugel. 1973. They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech 59: 273-283.
80. Welsh, S. 2002. Deliberative democracy and the rhetorical production of political culture. Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5: 679-708.
81. Young, I. M. 2001. Activist challenges to deliberative democracy. Political Theory 29: 670-690.