Public argument and legislative debate in the rhetorical construction of public policy

The case of Florida midwifery legislation

Bibliographic Data

ID9240614
AuthorsM Linda Miller (University of Pittsburgh, corresponding author)
Year1999
Volume85
Issue4
Pages361-379
Publication date1999-11-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueQuarterly Journal of Speech (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0033-5630 • E-ISSN: 1479-5779
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/00335639909384269
OpenAlexW1997322825
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited26

This study elaborates on theoretical models of consent formation by examining the interaction of public argument and legislative debate in the construction of public policy regulating a contested social practice, lay midwifery and homebirth. It explores the ways in which the discourse of a representative governing body serves to explicitly represent, omit, or modify public argument in its construction of public policy; and how public policy, once enacted, serves to advance certain meanings over others in public argument, in effect re‐norming it. Lay midwifery policy instantiated more positive meanings of alternative birthing practices than those characteristic of the public consensus. This divergence indicates that legislative discourse can be generative, particularly when the crafting of local strategic accommodations leads to the privileging of intra‐legislative ideographs over public ideographs

Argument (complex analysis) · Divergence (linguistics) · Law and economics · Legislation · Legislature · Linguistics · Political science · Public policy · Rhetorical question · Sociology · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Law · Philosophy · Public Administration · Public Relations and Crisis Communication · Rhetoric and Communication Studies

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub