Location
University of Windsor
Document Type
Paper
Keywords
metonymy, unlimited development, encryption, institutional argument
Start Date
18-5-2016 9:00 AM
End Date
21-5-2016 5:00 PM
Abstract
: Our study of public argumentation surrounding iPhone encryption addresses the argumentative function of the metonym. Metonyms accomplish general and specific argumentative purposes. Generally, metonyms help define and redefine the argumentative framework for a dispute. Within a controversy, metonyms operate as inference generators. We isolate and analyze several metonyms and elaborate their warrant-generating valences. Metonyms are inference generating tools capable of instantiating normative frameworks, invoking flexible and indeterminate senses of causality.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Reader's Reactions
G Thomas Goodnight, Commentary on “America vs. Apple: the Argumentative Function of Metonyms”: Defeasible Rhetoric: Networks, Security, & Metonyms (May 2016)
Included in
Communication Commons, Computer Engineering Commons, Computer Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Philosophy Commons
America vs. Apple: the Argumentative Function of Metonyms
University of Windsor
: Our study of public argumentation surrounding iPhone encryption addresses the argumentative function of the metonym. Metonyms accomplish general and specific argumentative purposes. Generally, metonyms help define and redefine the argumentative framework for a dispute. Within a controversy, metonyms operate as inference generators. We isolate and analyze several metonyms and elaborate their warrant-generating valences. Metonyms are inference generating tools capable of instantiating normative frameworks, invoking flexible and indeterminate senses of causality.
