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":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":"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
Short videos depicting rural China have gained popularity on social media domestically and internationally. Among the genre’s creators, Li Ziqi stands out for her unique style of culinary craft, starting from the most basic materials. I interpret Li Ziqi’s mushroom videos as multimodal “argumentative meshworks” casting a counterstatement to the “involuted” urban life and nature/culture division. To unfold the analyses, I first place videos in the context of urban ills. Built on previous studies of multimodal argumentation and entanglement anthropology, I define “argumentative meshworks” in three aspects: a human-nonhuman entanglement, a simplicity-complexity harmony, and a production-audience interaction. Then I select three mushroom videos as artefacts to unpack the multimodal meshworks. Following the empirical call argumentation studies, I use viewers’ comments to support my points throughout the whole piece. This inquiry explores multimodal argumentation’s new possibility to not only stress things out but create space for harmony and peace of mind.
{"title":"Crafting multimodal argumentative meshworks","authors":"Junyi Lv","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21010.lv","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21010.lv","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Short videos depicting rural China have gained popularity on social media domestically and internationally. Among the genre’s creators, Li Ziqi stands out for her unique style of culinary craft, starting from the most basic materials. I interpret Li Ziqi’s mushroom videos as multimodal “argumentative meshworks” casting a counterstatement to the “involuted” urban life and nature/culture division. To unfold the analyses, I first place videos in the context of urban ills. Built on previous studies of multimodal argumentation and entanglement anthropology, I define “argumentative meshworks” in three aspects: a human-nonhuman entanglement, a simplicity-complexity harmony, and a production-audience interaction. Then I select three mushroom videos as artefacts to unpack the multimodal meshworks. Following the empirical call argumentation studies, I use viewers’ comments to support my points throughout the whole piece. This inquiry explores multimodal argumentation’s new possibility to not only stress things out but create space for harmony and peace of mind.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47174803","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}
Argumentation on some public policy issues is conjugated with disagreement and power differentials. Institutionally dominant arguers control the argumentation context through imposing authority rules which sometimes incentivize them to respond to opposing arguers in a fallacious way1 – with “the repeating tokens of the same counterarguments” and without considering the merits of opposing arguments. As produced in accordance with authority rules, such fallacies are embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and easily pass unnoticed. To detect them, I introduce Argument Continuity (AC) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. AC is a set of the same arguments and counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to disconfirm opposing arguments and dismiss them. ACs are distinguished from other fallacies by their continuous nature and recursive way of production. ACs have their own life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing the cost of adopting a certain argument over time. I test the life cycle of ACs in a single case study – in consultations held by the Crown with Indigenous peoples of Canada over a controversial resource development project. Although ACs are not specific to the Crown-Indigenous relationships, they reveal how dominant arguers treat disagreement from epistemically diverse arguers. Based on observed evidence, I develop three theoretical propositions of ACs, which can serve as guidelines for researching the disconfirming mode of reasoning in other contexts of communication permeated by beliefs clash and power asymmetries.
{"title":"Argument Continuities in theory and practice","authors":"O. Pimenova","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21009.pim","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21009.pim","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Argumentation on some public policy issues is conjugated with disagreement and power differentials.\u0000 Institutionally dominant arguers control the argumentation context through imposing authority rules which sometimes incentivize\u0000 them to respond to opposing arguers in a fallacious way1 – with “the repeating tokens of the\u0000 same counterarguments” and without considering the merits of opposing arguments. As produced in accordance with authority rules,\u0000 such fallacies are embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and easily pass unnoticed. To detect them, I introduce\u0000 Argument Continuity (AC) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. AC is a set of the same arguments and\u0000 counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to disconfirm\u0000 opposing arguments and dismiss them. ACs are distinguished from other fallacies by their continuous nature and recursive way of\u0000 production. ACs have their own life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing\u0000 the cost of adopting a certain argument over time. I test the life cycle of ACs in a single case study – in consultations held by\u0000 the Crown with Indigenous peoples of Canada over a controversial resource development project. Although ACs are not specific to\u0000 the Crown-Indigenous relationships, they reveal how dominant arguers treat disagreement from epistemically diverse arguers. Based\u0000 on observed evidence, I develop three theoretical propositions of ACs, which can serve as guidelines for researching the\u0000 disconfirming mode of reasoning in other contexts of communication permeated by beliefs clash and power asymmetries.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49604293","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 Schär (2021): An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult–Children Discussions","authors":"A. Bova","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21012.bov","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21012.bov","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42182855","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}
Proverbs are often used in argumentation to convey an epistemic or deontic point of view. While their argumentative potential has not failed to gain the attention of linguists, much remains to be done in terms of analyzing their pragmatic function in single argumentative contexts and languages. With a view to this desideratum, and embracing a contrastive perspective, I pose the question of the argumentative role of proverbs in Italian and French journalistic discourse. In a pragma-dialectical framework, I take the rhetorical perspective to pertain to argumentation as much as the dialectical one and show the potential of proverbs in both spheres. However, I then focus mainly the former perspective, showing how paroemiological argumentation can help mitigate the difference of opinion especially in the case of dissent and facilitate argumentative effectiveness thanks to protagonist-centered and antagonist-oriented strategies involving linguistic polyphony and non-directness.
{"title":"Paroemiological argumentation in Italian and French journalistic discourse","authors":"Marina Bletsas","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21003.ble","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21003.ble","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Proverbs are often used in argumentation to convey an epistemic or deontic point of view. While their\u0000 argumentative potential has not failed to gain the attention of linguists, much remains to be done in terms of analyzing their\u0000 pragmatic function in single argumentative contexts and languages. With a view to this desideratum, and embracing a contrastive\u0000 perspective, I pose the question of the argumentative role of proverbs in Italian and French journalistic discourse. In a\u0000 pragma-dialectical framework, I take the rhetorical perspective to pertain to argumentation as much as the dialectical one and\u0000 show the potential of proverbs in both spheres. However, I then focus mainly the former perspective, showing how paroemiological\u0000 argumentation can help mitigate the difference of opinion especially in the case of dissent and facilitate argumentative\u0000 effectiveness thanks to protagonist-centered and antagonist-oriented strategies involving linguistic polyphony and\u0000 non-directness.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41905173","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：