In the name of the nobility of the cause, what I did is right

IF 1.7 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS Journal of Language and Politics Pub Date : 2023-02-16 DOI:10.1075/jlp.22066.eln
Rania Elnakkouzi
{"title":"In the name of the nobility of the cause, what I did is right","authors":"Rania Elnakkouzi","doi":"10.1075/jlp.22066.eln","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Discourse-focused analyses of political communication show a complex interplay between narration and\n argumentation. Yet, current analytical tools fall short of accounting for the multifarious ways in which narratives perform as\n arguments. This paper adopts the notion narrative argument, developed in argumentation theory, to examine the ways the\n ‘hero-protector’ narrative serves as argument. The paper analyzes four speeches given by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, whereby the\n use of force on foreign grounds is justified via the ‘hero-protector’ narrative. The analytical framework combines the\n argumentation strategies of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) with pragma-dialectics’ argumentation schemes. The analysis\n shows that each narrative sequence constituting the ‘hero-protector’ narrative constructs specific argument schemes, and the\n logical connections between these sequences link arguments in chains to collectively justify the rightness of claims. The paper,\n thus, seeks to illustrate the possibility of conceptualizing narrative discourse as an effective way to argue for or against a\n claim.","PeriodicalId":51676,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22066.eln","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Discourse-focused analyses of political communication show a complex interplay between narration and argumentation. Yet, current analytical tools fall short of accounting for the multifarious ways in which narratives perform as arguments. This paper adopts the notion narrative argument, developed in argumentation theory, to examine the ways the ‘hero-protector’ narrative serves as argument. The paper analyzes four speeches given by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, whereby the use of force on foreign grounds is justified via the ‘hero-protector’ narrative. The analytical framework combines the argumentation strategies of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) with pragma-dialectics’ argumentation schemes. The analysis shows that each narrative sequence constituting the ‘hero-protector’ narrative constructs specific argument schemes, and the logical connections between these sequences link arguments in chains to collectively justify the rightness of claims. The paper, thus, seeks to illustrate the possibility of conceptualizing narrative discourse as an effective way to argue for or against a claim.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以崇高事业的名义,我所做的是对的
以话语为中心的政治传播分析表明,叙事和论证之间存在着复杂的相互作用。然而,目前的分析工具无法解释叙事作为论据的多种方式。本文采用论证理论中发展起来的概念叙事论证,来考察“英雄保护者”叙事作为论证的方式。该论文分析了唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的四次演讲,通过“英雄保护者”的叙事,在外国使用武力是合理的。该分析框架将话语历史方法的论证策略与语用辩证法的论证方案相结合。分析表明,构成“英雄保护者”叙事的每个叙事序列都构建了特定的论证方案,这些序列之间的逻辑联系将论证链接在一起,共同证明主张的正确性。因此,本文试图说明将叙事话语概念化作为支持或反对主张的有效方式的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Political homophobia The construction of Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” in China Daily Rickety democracies From “them” to “us”? The use of metaphors to construct crisis discourses in describing COVID-19 vaccines in the Chinese and the American news media
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1