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":" ","pages":""},"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}
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":" ","pages":""},"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}
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":" ","pages":""},"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":"37 6","pages":""},"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}
The Holy Scriptures can be considered a specific kind of normative texts, whose use to assess practical moral cases requires interpretation. In the field of ethics, this interpretative problem results in the necessity of bridging the gap between the normative source – moral precepts – and the specific cases. In the history of the Church, this problem was the core of the so-called casuistry, namely the decision-making practice consisting in applying the Commandments and other principles of the Holy Scriptures to specific cases or moral problems. By taking into account the sin of lying, this paper argues that casuistic texts reveal an extremely sophisticated interpretative method, grounded on “pragmatic” contextual and communicative considerations and argumentative structures that resemble the ones used in legal interpretation. These works show how the underspecified biblical text expressing an abstract norm was enriched pragmatically by completing it and modulating its meaning so that it could be used to draw a conclusion in a specific context on a specific case. The mutual interdependence between biblical interpretation, pragmatics, and argumentation sheds light on a much broader phenomenon, namely the pragmatic nature of argumentation.
{"title":"The boundaries of lying","authors":"Fabrizio Macagno, G. Damele","doi":"10.1075/jaic.22009.mac","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22009.mac","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The Holy Scriptures can be considered a specific kind of\u0000 normative texts, whose use to assess practical moral cases requires\u0000 interpretation. In the field of ethics, this interpretative problem results in\u0000 the necessity of bridging the gap between the normative source – moral\u0000 precepts – and the specific cases. In the history of the Church, this problem\u0000 was the core of the so-called casuistry, namely the decision-making practice\u0000 consisting in applying the Commandments and other principles of the Holy\u0000 Scriptures to specific cases or moral problems. By taking into account the sin\u0000 of lying, this paper argues that casuistic texts reveal an extremely\u0000 sophisticated interpretative method, grounded on “pragmatic” contextual and\u0000 communicative considerations and argumentative structures that resemble the ones\u0000 used in legal interpretation. These works show how the underspecified biblical\u0000 text expressing an abstract norm was enriched pragmatically by completing it and\u0000 modulating its meaning so that it could be used to draw a conclusion in a\u0000 specific context on a specific case. The mutual interdependence between biblical\u0000 interpretation, pragmatics, and argumentation sheds light on a much broader\u0000 phenomenon, namely the pragmatic nature of argumentation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48032073","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}
Responding to Questions at Press Conferences makes clear how the spokespersons at China’s diplomatic press conferences maneuver strategically in defining the issues in the empirical counterpart of the confrontation stage when responding to the journalists’ questions and how this confrontational maneuvering is meant to be instrumental in convincing the intended audience. The detailed and systematic analysis of the various modes of confrontational maneuvering adopted by the spokespersons elucidate how China’s recently established “progressive” diplomatic style is shaped by its spokespersons’ argumentative discourse.
{"title":"Responding to Questions at Press Conferences","authors":"Peng Wu","doi":"10.1075/aic.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.21","url":null,"abstract":"Responding to Questions at Press Conferences makes clear how the spokespersons at China’s diplomatic press conferences maneuver strategically in defining the issues in the empirical counterpart of the confrontation stage when responding to the journalists’ questions and how this confrontational maneuvering is meant to be instrumental in convincing the intended audience. The detailed and systematic analysis of the various modes of confrontational maneuvering adopted by the spokespersons elucidate how China’s recently established “progressive” diplomatic style is shaped by its spokespersons’ argumentative discourse.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89480861","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 the aftermath of World War I, the US Government created eight cemeteries in France, Belgium, and the UK to honor American soldiers who died in Europe as well as to remind European audiences of that sacrifice. More recently, visitor centers were added to some of those sites. This essay explores how one of those visitor centers, located at Flanders Field American Cemetery in Belgium, serves to amplify the cemeteries’ public diplomacy argument. We argue that amplification, as described by classical and more contemporary theorists, serves an important function in argumentation, and that these centers themselves deserve greater attention as they provide direction to visitors in making the place matter. In this analysis, we also consider the recursive relationship between text/argument and context in site interpretation.
{"title":"Amplifying argument","authors":"Carole Blair, V. W. Balthrop","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21024.bla","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21024.bla","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In the aftermath of World War I, the US Government created eight cemeteries in France, Belgium, and the UK to honor American soldiers who died in Europe as well as to remind European audiences of that sacrifice. More recently, visitor centers were added to some of those sites. This essay explores how one of those visitor centers, located at Flanders Field American Cemetery in Belgium, serves to amplify the cemeteries’ public diplomacy argument. We argue that amplification, as described by classical and more contemporary theorists, serves an important function in argumentation, and that these centers themselves deserve greater attention as they provide direction to visitors in making the place matter. In this analysis, we also consider the recursive relationship between text/argument and context in site interpretation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44098300","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}
What strategies do social actors use to cultivate contexts for deliberative argumentation, and why do they expect them to work? Addressing this question advances understanding of actual deliberative argumentation and methods of analyzing and evaluating it. I analyze two keynote addresses designed to regulate discussions in conference panels that followed, and specifically discussions of how women ought to respond to racism. I find that the keynote speakers use strategies that bring to bear responsibilities inherent to the discussion form of consciousness-raising, including facing facts; listening, talking, and self-scrutinizing even when doing so is difficult or uncomfortable; and acting for change. The strategies make discussion responsibilities determinate, display the badness of moves that damage discussion, and show the speakers are exercising forbearance rather than withdrawing from discussion. These findings illustrate the need to consider how social actors communicatively cultivate local contexts for deliberative argumentation.
{"title":"Cultivating contexts for deliberative argumentation","authors":"B. Innocenti","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21018.inn","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21018.inn","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000What strategies do social actors use to cultivate contexts for deliberative argumentation, and why do they expect them to work? Addressing this question advances understanding of actual deliberative argumentation and methods of analyzing and evaluating it. I analyze two keynote addresses designed to regulate discussions in conference panels that followed, and specifically discussions of how women ought to respond to racism. I find that the keynote speakers use strategies that bring to bear responsibilities inherent to the discussion form of consciousness-raising, including facing facts; listening, talking, and self-scrutinizing even when doing so is difficult or uncomfortable; and acting for change. The strategies make discussion responsibilities determinate, display the badness of moves that damage discussion, and show the speakers are exercising forbearance rather than withdrawing from discussion. These findings illustrate the need to consider how social actors communicatively cultivate local contexts for deliberative argumentation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48284530","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 Cronier & Deruelle (2019): Argumenter en guerre. Discours de guerre, sur la guerre et dans la guerre de l’Antiquité à nos jours","authors":"Anca Gâță","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19016.gat","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19016.gat","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48120139","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 this paper, we describe inferences on a school task, which are reconstructed by the mean of two perspectives from argumentation theory: The pragma-dialectical model and Grize’s natural logic. Both analyses focus on the same item of mathematics, issued from a PISA survey, in order to discuss their specific contribution in elucidating the actual reasoning involved in both the student's answer and the evaluator’s expectations. The mismatch between these two points of view allow us to discuss the potentiality of a situation of misunderstanding. Investigating how specific tasks in particular contexts are interpreted provides a contribution to methodological approaches treating thinking processes as situated and socially negotiated from a diversity of points of views, as for example Inhelder’s (1962) microgenetic approach. In order to extend such analysis to interpretations of discourse, an interdisciplinary approach combining argumentation theory and socio-cognitive psychology is needed. Here, we observed for instance that students may provide the expected answers and still interpret the question or problem differently from the task’s designers (or “teacher”). The meaning of language and other signs, such as graphs or mathematical symbols, cannot be taken for granted when several interlocutors are involved. This issue chiefly concerns argumentation theory, since it raises the question of the integration of specific contexts and points of view in the analysis of argumentation. Therefore, argumentation should be analysed also as a process, and not only as a product; For more detail on this distinction, see for instance Grize (1996) and Kuhn & Udell (2003, 2007).
{"title":"From inference processes to situations of misunderstanding","authors":"Alaric Kohler, Teuta Mehmeti","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18010.koh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18010.koh","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this paper, we describe inferences on a school task, which are reconstructed by the mean of two perspectives from argumentation theory: The pragma-dialectical model and Grize’s natural logic. Both analyses focus on the same item of mathematics, issued from a PISA survey, in order to discuss their specific contribution in elucidating the actual reasoning involved in both the student's answer and the evaluator’s expectations. The mismatch between these two points of view allow us to discuss the potentiality of a situation of misunderstanding.\u0000Investigating how specific tasks in particular contexts are interpreted provides a contribution to methodological approaches treating thinking processes as situated and socially negotiated from a diversity of points of views, as for example Inhelder’s (1962) microgenetic approach. In order to extend such analysis to interpretations of discourse, an interdisciplinary approach combining argumentation theory and socio-cognitive psychology is needed.\u0000Here, we observed for instance that students may provide the expected answers and still interpret the question or problem differently from the task’s designers (or “teacher”). The meaning of language and other signs, such as graphs or mathematical symbols, cannot be taken for granted when several interlocutors are involved. This issue chiefly concerns argumentation theory, since it raises the question of the integration of specific contexts and points of view in the analysis of argumentation. Therefore, argumentation should be analysed also as a process, and not only as a product; For more detail on this distinction, see for instance Grize (1996) and Kuhn & Udell (2003, 2007).","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46642174","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：