This paper proposes to investigate the public responses to situationally-triggered metaphors as these have been observed in political argumentation. Situationally-triggered metaphors occur when a nonmetaphorical connection is made between the metaphor and an aspect of the relevant situational context. The question addressed in this research is: how are such metaphors perceived by the public when these form part of the political argumentation? To answer this question, the study focuses on a particular instance of political situationally-triggered metaphor i.e., Boris Johnson’s “James Bond” metaphor produced during COP26. The paper draws on Critical Metaphor Analysis and Deliberate Metaphor Theory to analyse the public comments and reactions posted on the social media platform Twitter in response to the politician’s arguments. The analysis reveals that most of the public responses exploit the “James Bond” metaphor to dispute Johnson’s self-identification to the fictional character and provide meta-arguments that revolve around the politician’s misuse of metaphors. In contrast, responses that exploit the metaphor to convey political arguments or endorsement are much more limited. It is thus argued that situationally-triggered metaphors not only represent a political rhetorical device, but they are also effective political tools to shift public attention towards discursive patterns instead of arguments presented in discourse.
{"title":"Situationally-triggered metaphor as political argument","authors":"Anaïs Augé","doi":"10.1075/jaic.23002.aug","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23002.aug","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper proposes to investigate the public responses to situationally-triggered metaphors as these have been\u0000 observed in political argumentation. Situationally-triggered metaphors occur when a nonmetaphorical connection is made between the\u0000 metaphor and an aspect of the relevant situational context. The question addressed in this research is: how are such metaphors\u0000 perceived by the public when these form part of the political argumentation? To answer this question, the study focuses on a\u0000 particular instance of political situationally-triggered metaphor i.e., Boris Johnson’s “James Bond” metaphor produced during\u0000 COP26. The paper draws on Critical Metaphor Analysis and Deliberate Metaphor Theory to analyse the public comments and reactions\u0000 posted on the social media platform Twitter in response to the politician’s arguments. The analysis reveals that most of the\u0000 public responses exploit the “James Bond” metaphor to dispute Johnson’s self-identification to the fictional character and provide\u0000 meta-arguments that revolve around the politician’s misuse of metaphors. In contrast, responses that exploit the metaphor to\u0000 convey political arguments or endorsement are much more limited. It is thus argued that situationally-triggered metaphors not only\u0000 represent a political rhetorical device, but they are also effective political tools to shift public attention towards discursive\u0000 patterns instead of arguments presented in discourse.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140962167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During the Covid-19 pandemic, various institutions held press conferences to inform the public about the situation. Journalists engaged in these events to obtain information and to scrutinize the appropriateness of authorities’ measures. Previous research has shown that journalists have become more adversarial towards politicians, but also that health crises make journalists more cooperative with authorities to help manage the situation. However, it remains unknown to what extent journalists retain their deliberative aim in press conferences where crises are addressed, and how their interventions as a whole shape discussions with authorities. A corpus of twenty-one press conferences held by seven institutions was annotated according to the argumentative moves of journalists. Results show that journalists displayed a wide array of argumentative moves, and the findings suggest that journalists incline towards retrieving information during crises, unless the situation gets intertwined with political turmoil.
{"title":"Journalists’ questions during crisis","authors":"Alfonso Hernández","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00024.her","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00024.her","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000During the Covid-19 pandemic, various institutions held press conferences to inform the public about the situation. Journalists engaged in these events to obtain information and to scrutinize the appropriateness of authorities’ measures. Previous research has shown that journalists have become more adversarial towards politicians, but also that health crises make journalists more cooperative with authorities to help manage the situation. However, it remains unknown to what extent journalists retain their deliberative aim in press conferences where crises are addressed, and how their interventions as a whole shape discussions with authorities. A corpus of twenty-one press conferences held by seven institutions was annotated according to the argumentative moves of journalists. Results show that journalists displayed a wide array of argumentative moves, and the findings suggest that journalists incline towards retrieving information during crises, unless the situation gets intertwined with political turmoil.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140966250","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Linguistic arguments are paramount in legal interpretation. They are widely used by judges and considered to be ubiquitous across jurisdictions. It is claimed that they are decisive and limitative in the judicial interpretation of the law. The claims have long been subject to theoretical scrutiny and, recently, testing within experimental jurisprudence. In this paper, we analyse the judicial reasoning in a landmark Italian case from the end of the nineteenth century concerning Lidia Poët, an aspiring practising female lawyer. The case was decided in the last instance by the Turin Court of Cassation. We give a detailed argumentative analysis of the reasoning of the Court of Cassation in Turin in the Lidia Poët case and show that the crucial linguistic and systematic arguments used are not grounds for the interpretative decision to exclude women from the denotation of the word “lawyer.” We conclude that the linguistic arguments employed by courts often do not do the argumentative work they are expected to do. Instead, they cover the substantial views that have determined the ascription of normative meaning to a term or sentence.
{"title":"When legal interpretation is not about language","authors":"Bojan Spaić, Roberto Isibor","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00025.isi","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00025.isi","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Linguistic arguments are paramount in legal interpretation. They are widely used by judges and considered to be\u0000 ubiquitous across jurisdictions. It is claimed that they are decisive and limitative in the judicial interpretation of the law.\u0000 The claims have long been subject to theoretical scrutiny and, recently, testing within experimental jurisprudence. In this paper,\u0000 we analyse the judicial reasoning in a landmark Italian case from the end of the nineteenth century concerning Lidia Poët, an\u0000 aspiring practising female lawyer. The case was decided in the last instance by the Turin Court of Cassation. We give a detailed\u0000 argumentative analysis of the reasoning of the Court of Cassation in Turin in the Lidia Poët case and show that the crucial\u0000 linguistic and systematic arguments used are not grounds for the interpretative decision to exclude women from the denotation of\u0000 the word “lawyer.” We conclude that the linguistic arguments employed by courts often do not do the argumentative work they are\u0000 expected to do. Instead, they cover the substantial views that have determined the ascription of normative meaning to a term or\u0000 sentence.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140965753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Williams, Young & Launer (2021): The Rhetorical Rise and Demise of “Democracy”","authors":"Gordon R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1075/jaic.23006.mit","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.23006.mit","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141126374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on the web, on a global level. The collective writing of articles, open to the participation of all, can give rise to major conflicts between contributors, in texts and debates, given the high stakes involved in achieving agreement on a public presentation of controversial topics. We present analyses of how disagreements are managed across socio-technical and dialogical spaces in French Wikipedia, with respect to two case studies, on Freud and the Turin Shroud. We adopt a mixed methods approach, combining results of analyses of interviews with moderators in these articles and argumentative discussions underlying them, within a broadly pragma-dialectical framework. We show, on one hand, that moderators’ attempts to resolve disagreements by requiring participants to cite sources simply displace conflicts to the nature of those sources, their validity, their authors and the good faith of their proponents. Debates concerning sources themselves draw on social actors’ perspectives in dialogical spaces, beyond the discussion itself. Disagreements are managed rather than resolved dialectically by displacing them to alternative socio-technical spaces, such as different sections of the text itself, or participants’ personal pages.
{"title":"Arguing across spaces in an online epistemic community","authors":"Michael J. Baker, Françoise Détienne","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00023.bak","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00023.bak","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on the web, on a global level. The collective writing of\u0000 articles, open to the participation of all, can give rise to major conflicts between contributors, in texts and debates, given the\u0000 high stakes involved in achieving agreement on a public presentation of controversial topics. We present analyses of how\u0000 disagreements are managed across socio-technical and dialogical spaces in French Wikipedia, with respect to two case studies, on\u0000 Freud and the Turin Shroud. We adopt a mixed methods approach, combining results of analyses of interviews with moderators in\u0000 these articles and argumentative discussions underlying them, within a broadly pragma-dialectical framework. We show, on one hand,\u0000 that moderators’ attempts to resolve disagreements by requiring participants to cite sources simply displace conflicts to the\u0000 nature of those sources, their validity, their authors and the good faith of their proponents. Debates concerning sources\u0000 themselves draw on social actors’ perspectives in dialogical spaces, beyond the discussion itself. Disagreements are managed\u0000 rather than resolved dialectically by displacing them to alternative socio-technical spaces, such as different sections of the\u0000 text itself, or participants’ personal pages.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140963995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2021, China’s entertainment industry experienced a series of unusual argumentative controversies followed by the creation of the Qing Lang movement initiated by the Chinese government that called for tackling irregularities in the industry. With strong support from the Chinese public, the Qing Lang movement presents an intriguing case to examine a new model of social argument representing both the public and state interest in resolving social problems in the Chinese version of the public sphere. The paper identifies key characteristics defining a reciprocal model of social activism in state-sponsored actions in China exemplified by the Qing Lang movement. The paper also argues for the value of a culture-specific approach to understanding public sphere and social activism and clarifies the function of argument in Chinese society.
{"title":"The convergence of public sphere and state advocacy","authors":"Xi Li","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22015.li","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22015.li","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In 2021, China’s entertainment industry experienced a series of unusual argumentative controversies followed by\u0000 the creation of the Qing Lang movement initiated by the Chinese government that called for tackling irregularities in the\u0000 industry. With strong support from the Chinese public, the Qing Lang movement presents an intriguing case to examine a new model\u0000 of social argument representing both the public and state interest in resolving social problems in the Chinese version of the\u0000 public sphere. The paper identifies key characteristics defining a reciprocal model of social activism in state-sponsored actions\u0000 in China exemplified by the Qing Lang movement. The paper also argues for the value of a culture-specific approach to\u0000 understanding public sphere and social activism and clarifies the function of argument in Chinese society.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2024-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140963090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories are introduced.
{"title":"The epistemological orientation of Ottoman argumentation theory and its relation to kalām","authors":"Serkan Ince","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22021.inc","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22021.inc","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by\u0000 Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām\u0000 (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each\u0000 other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories\u0000 are introduced.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138997659","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Controversial “gain-of-function” research (GoFR) aims to improve understanding of human health by studying behavior of genetically altered viruses in laboratory experiments. GoFR proponents tout its potential to support public health disease surveillance, drug development and vaccine innovation, while skeptics warn that unplanned laboratory release of genetically altered pathogens could harm millions in pandemics caused by science. Public interest in GoFR grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, as theories circulated that SARS-CoV-2 was the result of GoFR conducted at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology. Analysis of a 2015 public debate on GoFR research, reconstructed according to pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, sheds light on the increasingly salient scientific controversy and contributes to the growing literature on argumentation and health.
{"title":"Covid-19 and public debate over gain-of-function research on\u0000 potentially pandemic pathogens","authors":"Gordon R. Mitchell","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00020.mit","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00020.mit","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Controversial “gain-of-function” research (GoFR) aims to improve\u0000 understanding of human health by studying behavior of genetically altered\u0000 viruses in laboratory experiments. GoFR proponents tout its potential to support\u0000 public health disease surveillance, drug development and vaccine innovation,\u0000 while skeptics warn that unplanned laboratory release of genetically altered\u0000 pathogens could harm millions in pandemics caused by science. Public interest in\u0000 GoFR grew during the Covid-19 pandemic, as theories circulated that SARS-CoV-2\u0000 was the result of GoFR conducted at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.\u0000 Analysis of a 2015 public debate on GoFR research, reconstructed according to\u0000 pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, sheds light on the increasingly salient\u0000 scientific controversy and contributes to the growing literature on\u0000 argumentation and health.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000637","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.
{"title":"Tweeting fallacies","authors":"José Ángel Gascón","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22023.gas","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22023.gas","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The fallacy approach to argument pedagogy has been criticized as being overtly critical, theoretically defective and encouraging an adversarial attitude. In order to solve some of those issues, the effects of fallacy teaching on the arguer’s behavior should be studied empirically. Here I present an exploratory study in which I take a look at how accusations of fallacies are made on Twitter. 865 accusations were analyzed according to seven criteria: (1) whether the fallacy is identified, (2) whether it is misidentified, (3) whether the accusation was substantiated, (4) whether the substantiation makes reference to the context, (5) whether the accuser relies on the “taxonomic technique”, (6) whether the accuser relies on a problematic theory, and (7) whether the accuser is willing to discuss the accusation. Both the findings of the study and the reliability of the criteria are discussed.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138996412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of Serafis (2023): Authoritarianism on the front page: Multimodal discourse and argumentation in times of multiple crises in Greece","authors":"A. Tseronis","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00021.tse","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00021.tse","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139000023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：