{"title":"Review of Wu (2023): Responding to questions at press conferences: Confrontational maneuvering by Chinese spokespersons","authors":"Menno H. Reijven","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00022.rei","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00022.rei","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":"138999588","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}
Abstract This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.
{"title":"Comparison of oral and written argumentation by Ultra-OrthodoxJewish students","authors":"Ehud Tsemach","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22013.tse","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22013.tse","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435023","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}
Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.
{"title":"A repugnant possibility","authors":"Diana Giner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22004.gin","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity. This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory ( van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004 ; Feteris, 2005 ; van Eemeren, 2007 ; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009 ) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor ( Lakoff & Turner, 1989 ; Sopory & Dillard, 2002 ; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers ( Vande Kopple, 1985 ; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003 ) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435028","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}
Abstract The institute of legality for traders, including business contracts, business correspondence, and legal proceedings concerning economic cases, appeared in Mesopotamia first since the early dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.). This institute became well organized for the period of the third dynasty of Ur (from the 22nd to the 21st century B.C.). This tradition was continued in the Babylonian as well as other Mesopotamian dynasties. As a consequence, Akkadian speaking traders preferred logical tools in their business correspondences, too. Therefore, the business contracts and business correspondence satisfied the main argumentative stages of legal proceedings. In late antiquity since the 2nd century A.D. Greek, Bactrian, and Sogdian were one of the most important languages for traders of Silk Road with very high standards of argumentation as main tools of dispute resolutions taken from the Babylonians. In this paper, I analyze some general features of these standards.
{"title":"Argumentation tradition of traders in late antiquity","authors":"Andrew Schumann","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22003.sch","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22003.sch","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The institute of legality for traders, including business contracts, business correspondence, and legal proceedings concerning economic cases, appeared in Mesopotamia first since the early dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.). This institute became well organized for the period of the third dynasty of Ur (from the 22nd to the 21st century B.C.). This tradition was continued in the Babylonian as well as other Mesopotamian dynasties. As a consequence, Akkadian speaking traders preferred logical tools in their business correspondences, too. Therefore, the business contracts and business correspondence satisfied the main argumentative stages of legal proceedings. In late antiquity since the 2nd century A.D. Greek, Bactrian, and Sogdian were one of the most important languages for traders of Silk Road with very high standards of argumentation as main tools of dispute resolutions taken from the Babylonians. In this paper, I analyze some general features of these standards.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435029","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 van Eemeren, Garssen, Greco, van Haaften, Labrie, Leal & Wu (2022): Argumentative Style","authors":"Manfred Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22025.kie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22025.kie","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435025","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}
Abstract This article reviews How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate
本文回顾了哲学家是如何争论的:罗素-考普斯顿辩论的对抗性合作
{"title":"Review of Leal & Marraud (2022): How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate","authors":"José Ángel Gascón","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22014.gas","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22014.gas","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article reviews How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135435030","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 teachings of Jesus consist to a great extent of parables. There is, however, no unanimity on what each parable means or how it should be interpreted. I argue that modern argumentation analysis is the key to understanding the parables and their effect on the reading or listening public. Irrespective of the length of the parable or the imagery used, the aim of each one is to persuade its audience. The parables operate with a common, hidden argumentative structure. By cracking this code, one can assess the meaning and function of the parables in a reliable way. Example texts discussed and analyzed are some crucial parables in Matt. 24–25.
{"title":"Cracking the code of Jesus’s parables with argumentation\u0000 analysis","authors":"Lauri Thurén","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22005.thu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22005.thu","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The teachings of Jesus consist to a great extent of parables.\u0000 There is, however, no unanimity on what each parable means or how it should be\u0000 interpreted. I argue that modern argumentation analysis is the key to\u0000 understanding the parables and their effect on the reading or listening public.\u0000 Irrespective of the length of the parable or the imagery used, the aim of each\u0000 one is to persuade its audience. The parables operate with a common, hidden\u0000 argumentative structure. By cracking this code, one can assess the meaning and\u0000 function of the parables in a reliable way. Example texts discussed and analyzed\u0000 are some crucial parables in Matt. 24–25.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44857852","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 interpretation of religious texts is an area of research in which rhetoric and the use of arguments play a central role. The analysis of the persuasive message expressed in many biblical passages, the reconstruction of the implicit messages conveyed by the texts, and the justification of an interpretation are questions that concern directly argumentation studies. The pragmatic dimension of arguments, the instruments developed for bringing to light implicit assumptions and conclusions, and the methods for justifying an interpretative claim can be important resources for biblical studies and applications that can open new research paths. This introduction outlines the crossroad between the two fields and the possible directions of future inquiry.
{"title":"Argumentation and the interpretation of religious\u0000 texts","authors":"Fabrizio Macagno, Luciana Salvato","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22006.mac","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22006.mac","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The interpretation of religious texts is an area of research in\u0000 which rhetoric and the use of arguments play a central role. The analysis of the\u0000 persuasive message expressed in many biblical passages, the reconstruction of\u0000 the implicit messages conveyed by the texts, and the justification of an\u0000 interpretation are questions that concern directly argumentation studies.\u0000 The pragmatic dimension of arguments, the instruments developed for bringing to\u0000 light implicit assumptions and conclusions, and the methods for justifying an\u0000 interpretative claim can be important resources for biblical studies and\u0000 applications that can open new research paths. This introduction outlines the\u0000 crossroad between the two fields and the possible directions of future inquiry.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47328523","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}
This paper analyzes a particular type of support that religious authorities use in their argumentative monologues on moral and theological matters. In particular, the argumentative monologue given by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI during his 2011 visit to the federal parliament in the Reichstag in Berlin will be used as a case study. In his speech, Ratzinger offers his reflections on the foundations of law starting from his interpretation of a brief story from the First Book of the Kings in the Old Testament (1 Kings 3:5–10). The entire interpretation assumes the form of an argumentative text, in which he appeals to an authoritative voice of German-language jurisprudence (Hans Kelsen) and three Christian religious authorities (St Augustine, Origen of Alexandria, and St Paul). The aim of the study is to assess the pragmatic strength of Ratzinger’s argumentation and thus verify the authoritative contribution of religious experts in his argumentation, in which religion and ethics are linked together.
{"title":"The appeal to religious authority","authors":"Luciana Salvato","doi":"10.1075/jaic.00018.sal","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00018.sal","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper analyzes a particular type of support that religious authorities use in their argumentative monologues\u0000 on moral and theological matters. In particular, the argumentative monologue given by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI during\u0000 his 2011 visit to the federal parliament in the Reichstag in Berlin will be used as a case study. In his speech, Ratzinger offers\u0000 his reflections on the foundations of law starting from his interpretation of a brief story from the First Book of the\u0000 Kings in the Old Testament (1 Kings 3:5–10). The entire interpretation assumes the form of an\u0000 argumentative text, in which he appeals to an authoritative voice of German-language jurisprudence (Hans Kelsen) and three\u0000 Christian religious authorities (St Augustine, Origen of Alexandria, and St Paul). The aim of the study is to assess the pragmatic\u0000 strength of Ratzinger’s argumentation and thus verify the authoritative contribution of religious experts in his argumentation, in\u0000 which religion and ethics are linked together.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45162061","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}
Our time is an apocalyptic time, but the argumentation in this apocalyptic time has hardly been studied by scholars of argumentation. This article shows how both Donald Trump and the jihadist warriors of ISIS appeal to an apocalyptic worldview in their argumentation. The three topos of evil, time and authority from Stephen O’Leary’s Arguing the Apocalypse are used in the analysis. Both Trump supporters and jihadist warriors see themselves as fighting for God and their enemies as representing evil forces. For scholars of argumentation the role of arguments woven into narratives that become whole worldviews needs to be studied more thoroughly.
{"title":"Apocalyptic argumentation","authors":"A. Eriksson","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22007.eri","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22007.eri","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Our time is an apocalyptic time, but the argumentation in this\u0000 apocalyptic time has hardly been studied by scholars of argumentation. This\u0000 article shows how both Donald Trump and the jihadist warriors of ISIS appeal to\u0000 an apocalyptic worldview in their argumentation. The three topos of evil, time\u0000 and authority from Stephen O’Leary’s Arguing the Apocalypse are\u0000 used in the analysis. Both Trump supporters and jihadist warriors see themselves\u0000 as fighting for God and their enemies as representing evil forces. For scholars\u0000 of argumentation the role of arguments woven into narratives that become whole\u0000 worldviews needs to be studied more thoroughly.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41299477","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：