{"title":"自由万岁!","authors":"Manfred Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although\n “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”\n (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of\n language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French\n liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground\n underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.\n Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,\n that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to\n establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.\n With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is\n persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled\n a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list\n of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and\n critically evaluated.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viva la libertà!\",\"authors\":\"Manfred Kienpointner\",\"doi\":\"10.1075/jaic.21019.kie\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although\\n “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”\\n (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of\\n language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French\\n liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground\\n underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.\\n Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,\\n that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to\\n establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.\\n With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is\\n persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled\\n a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list\\n of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and\\n critically evaluated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Argumentation in Context\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21019.kie\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although
“freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”
(Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of
language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French
liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground
underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.
Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,
that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to
establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.
With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is
persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled
a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list
of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and
critically evaluated.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.