LEADER 00000nam  2200409   4500 
001    AAI3402315 
005    20101008073452.5 
008    101008s2009    ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d 
020    9781109743906 
035    (UMI)AAI3402315 
040    UMI|cUMI 
100 1  Clancy, Kristine Elizabeth 
245 10 Defining people: An analysis of the congressional lexicon 
       on immigration reform 
300    245 p 
500    Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-
       05, Section: A, page:  
500    Advisers: Charles J. Stewart; Robin P. Clair 
502    Thesis (Ph.D.)--Purdue University, 2009 
520    Definitions are not neutral acts of classification. 
       Definitions provide the foundation of our interactions 
       with the subjects and objects defined. All definitions are
       arguments, even uncontroversial definitions function as 
       claims about how the world should be. Most scholarship on 
       definitions has concerned itself with either argument 
       about definition or argument from definition. Instead this
       study examines persuasive definitions and argument by 
       definition. Argument  by definition acknowledges the 
       epistemic nature of rhetoric and the power defining 
       (naming) has to shape public policy argument 
520    Definitions function rhetorically; the act of defining 
       conveys a positive or negative attitude in the course of 
       naming. In the case of persuasive definitions, the 
       argument is never actually advanced. Instead, the 
       definition is simply put forward as real or objective and 
       the argument is simply smuggled in through the use of the 
       definition itself. The definition functions 
       terministically, foregrounding certain elements of the 
       situation and backgrounding others. As a result, the 
       definition affects what counts as data for or against a 
       proposal by describing causes and identifying solutions at
       the same time it invites moral judgments 
520    This study investigated persuasive definitions and their 
       use as argument by definition by exploring the use of 
       persuasive definitions in a contemporary debate where the 
       definitional dispute remains dormant (it is not a live 
       dispute of a group of language users). This study examines
       the Congressional debate over the Border Protection, Anti-
       Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 as 
       a case study 
520    During the Congressional debate, several different 
       persuasive definitions of immigrants are used, including 
       illegal alien, undocumented, and worker/laborer. During 
       the Congressional debate the persuasive definitions of 
       immigrants functioned as arguments by definition by 
       constructing immigration policy in a specific way. 
       Representatives constructed the immigration problem based 
       on the terminology they chose to talk about immigrants. 
       The persuasive definitions functioned terministically to 
       select, reflect, and deflect reality. This terministic 
       function was evident in the way the different 
       Representatives constructed the immigration problem, 
       assigned cause and blame, and offered solutions 
590    School code: 0183 
650  4 Speech Communication 
650  4 Political Science, General 
690    0459 
690    0615 
710 2  Purdue University.|bCommunication 
773 0  |tDissertation Abstracts International|g71-05A 
856 40 |uhttp://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/