Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The present paper aims to investigate the main argumentative uses of definitions in various communicative contexts of the parliamentary discourse, on the basis of two sets of data, selected from the British and the Romanian Parliaments. Relevant categories of argumentative definitions are identified and described, by taking into consideration their linguistic structure and rhetorical features, as well as their current association with other types of arguments and pragmatic strategies. The cross-cultural and comparative perspective allows us to grasp to what extent the institutional forms, procedural rules and cultural models can actually influence the argumentative choices and reasoning patterns in the specific cases of the British and the Romanian Parliamentary discourse.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anscombre, Jean-Claude and Oswald Ducrot
    1983L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aristotle
    Aristotle. Rhetoric Translated by W. Rhys Roberts ed. by W. D. Ross . Cover copyright by Cosimo Classics. New York 2010 (originally published inThe Works of Aristotle, vol.IX, ed. by W. D. Ross . London: Oxford University Press, 1910–1931).
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bayley, Paul
    2004 “Introduction. The Whys and Wherefores of Analysing Parliamentary discourse. Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse.” InCross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley , 1–44. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay [Google Scholar]
  4. Breton, Philippe
    2003L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Charles, David
    (ed) 2010Definition in Greek Philosophy. Oxford. Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564453.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199564453.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Culpeper, Jonathan
    1996 “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness.” Journal of Pragmatics25: 349–367.10.1016/0378‑2166(95)00014‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00014-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2016 “Impoliteness strategies”. InInterdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society, ed. by Alessandro Capone and Jacob L. Mey , 421–445. Cham/Heidelberg/New York: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_16 [Google Scholar]
  8. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984 “Esquisse d’une théorie polyphonique de l’énonciation.” InLe dire et le dit, ed. by Oswald Ducrot , 171–233. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 1991Dire et ne pas dire. Principes de sémantique linguistique. Paris: Hermann.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hestir, Blake E.
    2016Plato on the Metaphysical Foundation on Meaning and Truth. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316450864
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316450864 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hohmann, Hans
    2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic: Some Historical and Legal Perspectives.” Argumentation14(3): 223–234.10.1023/A:1007844811374
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007844811374 [Google Scholar]
  12. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 “Histrionic and Agonistic Features of Parliamentary Discourse”. Studies in Communication Sciences3(1): 25–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2006 “Parliamentary Discourses.” InEncyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, ed. by Keith Brown . 2nd edition, vol.9, 188–197. Oxford: Elsevier.10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/00720‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00720-3 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2009 “Strategies of Refutation by Definition. A Pragma-Rethorical Approach to Refutations in a Public Speech.” InPondering on Problems of Argumentation: Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen , 35–51. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_4 [Google Scholar]
  15. (ed) 2010a “Introduction.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie , 1–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.38.01ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.01ili [Google Scholar]
  16. 2010b “Managing dissent and interpersonal relations in the Romanian parliamentary discourse.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie , 193–22. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.38.11ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.11ili [Google Scholar]
  17. Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu, Liliana
    2012 “The Historicity of Democracy.” InParliamentary Discourses across Cultures: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. by Liliana Ionescu-Ruxăndoiu , Melania Roibu , and Mihaela-Viorica Constantinescu , 197–208. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Kövecses, Zoltán
    2005Metaphor in Culture: Universality and Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511614408
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408 [Google Scholar]
  19. Kublikowski, Robert
    2009 “Definition within the Structure of Argumentation.” Studies in Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric16(29): 229–244.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Macagno, Fabrizio
    2008 “The Dialectical-Dialogical Definitions.” L’Analisi Linguistica e LetterariaXVI(1): 443–461.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2010 “Definitions in Law.” Bulletin suisse de linguistique appliquée2: 199–217.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2014 “Presupposing Redefinitions.” InRhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman , and Steve Oswald , 249–278. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Macagno, Fabrizio and Walton Douglas
    2008 “Persuasive Definitions: Values, Meanings and Implicit Disagreements.” Informal Logic28(3): 203–228.10.22329/il.v28i3.594
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i3.594 [Google Scholar]
  25. Macagno, Fabrizio and Giovanni Damele
    2015 “The Hidden Acts of Definition in Law: Statutory Definitions and Burden of Persuasion.” InLogic in the Theory and Practice of Lawmaking, ed. by Michał Araszkiewicz and Krysztof Płeszka , 225–251. Cham/Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑319‑19575‑9_9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19575-9_9 [Google Scholar]
  26. Perelman, Chaïm , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1971The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver . Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Săftoiu, Răzvan
    2015 “Split Voices in Political Discourse.” Language and Dialogue5(3): 430–448.10.1075/ld.5.3.04saf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.5.3.04saf [Google Scholar]
  28. Schiappa, Edward
    1993 “Arguing about Definitions.” Argumentation7(4): 403–417.10.1007/BF00711058
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711058 [Google Scholar]
  29. 1996 “Toward a Pragmatic Approach to Definition: ’Wetlands’ and the politics of meaning.” InEnvironmental Pragmatics, ed. by Andrew Light and Eric Katz , 209–230. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2003Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Semino, Elena
    2008Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
    1981 “Irony and the Use – Mention Distinction.” InRadical Pragmatics, ed. by Peter Cole , 295–318. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Stevenson, Charles L.
    1938 “Persuasive Definitions.” Mind47(187): 331–350.10.1093/mind/XLVII.187.331
    https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVII.187.331 [Google Scholar]
  34. Treimane, Laura
    2011 “Analyzing Parliamentary Discourse: Systemic Functional Perspective”. Kalbotyra63(3): 78–94.10.15388/Klbt.2011.7653
    https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2011.7653 [Google Scholar]
  35. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    2004 “Text and Context of Parliamentary Debates.” InCross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley , 339–372. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij [Google Scholar]
  36. Walton, Douglas
    2001 “Persuasive Definitions and Public Policy Arguments.” Argumentation and Advocacy37: 117–132.10.1080/00028533.2001.11951664
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2001.11951664 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2006Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Walton, Douglas and Fabrizio Macagno
    2011 “Quotations and Presumptions: Dialogical Effects of Misquotations.” Informal Logic31(1): 27–55.10.22329/il.v31i1.657
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i1.657 [Google Scholar]
  39. Weigand, Edda
    2009 “The Dialogic Principle Revisited: Speech Acts and Mental States.” InLanguage as Dialogue, ed. by Sebastian Feller , 21–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Yule, George
    1996Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zarefsky, David
    1998 “Definitions.” InArgument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, ed. by James Klumpp , 1–11. Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2004 “Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definitions”. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3): 607–619.10.1111/j.1741‑5705.2004.00214.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2004.00214.x [Google Scholar]
  44. 2006 “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric.” Argumentation20(4): 399–416.10.1007/s10503‑007‑9030‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9030-6 [Google Scholar]
  45. 2014Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation: Selected Essays by David Zarefsky, New York: Springer.10.1007/978‑3‑319‑05485‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8 [Google Scholar]
  46. Camera Deputaților a Parlamentului României
    Camera Deputaților a Parlamentului României (Recorded Parliamentary debates) www.cdep.ro
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Carp
    Carp = Petre P. Carp 2000Discursuri parlamentare [1909], Bucureşti: Grai şi Suflet. Cultura Naţională.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Maiorescu
    Maiorescu = Titu Maiorescu 2006Opere, III, Discursuri parlamentare (1866–1899). Fundaţia Naţională pentru Ştiinţă şi Artă, Bucureşti: Univers Enciclopedic.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. The United Kingdom Parliament Home Page
    The United Kingdom Parliament Home Page (Hansard records): www.parliament.uk
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error