In this contribution a characterization is given of the argumentative style utilised in an opening speech of a plenary debate in the European Parliament. This debate is initiated through an opening speech in which the rapporteur of a parliamentary committee presents the European Commission’s proposal, as well as the amendments and the arguments to support them. As it is the rapporteur’s aim to gain broad parliamentary agreement with the proposal, the opening speech is vital to the debate, because all contributions of the MEPs relate directly to the argumentation put forward by the rapporteur. Based on the analytic overview the strategic design and the three dimensions of argumentative style the argumentative style that is used by the rapporteur is characterized.
{"title":"The argumentative style of the opening speech of a debate in the European Parliament","authors":"B. Garssen","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21026.gar","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21026.gar","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this contribution a characterization is given of the argumentative style utilised in an opening speech of a plenary debate in the European Parliament. This debate is initiated through an opening speech in which the rapporteur of a parliamentary committee presents the European Commission’s proposal, as well as the amendments and the arguments to support them. As it is the rapporteur’s aim to gain broad parliamentary agreement with the proposal, the opening speech is vital to the debate, because all contributions of the MEPs relate directly to the argumentation put forward by the rapporteur. Based on the analytic overview the strategic design and the three dimensions of argumentative style the argumentative style that is used by the rapporteur is characterized.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45840891","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}
There is much more to argumentative style than just the well-known presentational (“linguistic”) dimension. Equally important dimensions of the argumentative styles utilised in resolving a difference of opinion are the topical dimension of the selection of the standpoints, starting points, arguments and concluding statements put forward in the discourse and the dimension of the adaptations to the presumed demand of the audience that is to be convinced. In argumentative discourse these three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves together in the argumentative moves that are made, the argumentative routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear. Starting from this perspective, it is shown in this article how the argumentative style can be identified that was utilised by a Member of the European Parliament in a plenary debate on labelling fruit juices.
{"title":"Characterising an MEP’s argumentative style","authors":"Frans H. van Eemeren","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21020.eem","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21020.eem","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000There is much more to argumentative style than just the well-known presentational (“linguistic”) dimension. Equally important dimensions of the argumentative styles utilised in resolving a difference of opinion are the topical dimension of the selection of the standpoints, starting points, arguments and concluding statements put forward in the discourse and the dimension of the adaptations to the presumed demand of the audience that is to be convinced. In argumentative discourse these three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves together in the argumentative moves that are made, the argumentative routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear. Starting from this perspective, it is shown in this article how the argumentative style can be identified that was utilised by a Member of the European Parliament in a plenary debate on labelling fruit juices.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48526812","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}
Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core” (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions. Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions, that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media. With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and critically evaluated.
{"title":"Viva la libertà!","authors":"Manfred Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21019.kie","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Few of the central concepts of political discourse are as controversial as “freedom”/“liberty”. However, although\u0000 “freedom” definitely belongs to the so-called “essentially contested concepts”, even “a contested concept has an uncontested core”\u0000 (Lakoff 2006: 23–24). This uncontested core can be described as the core meaning of\u0000 language-specific lexemes such as English freedom, liberty, German Freiheit, French\u0000 liberté or Italian libertà. The core meaning can be established as the common ground\u0000 underlying all more specific controversial uses and definitions.\u0000 Within political discourse, the context-specific uses of these lexemes can be described as persuasive definitions,\u0000 that is, as instances of strategic maneuvering (cf. van Eemeren 2010), which try to\u0000 establish one’s own use of these words as the politically dominant one and the one most widespread in the media.\u0000 With this theoretical background in mind, I would like to provide an overview of how libertà is\u0000 persuasively defined and strategically used within contemporary Italian political discourse. In order to do this, I have compiled\u0000 a small corpus of party programs, political speeches, interviews, newspaper editorials and posts. From this empirical basis a list\u0000 of argumentative strategies concerning explicit and implicit definitions of libertà will be compiled and\u0000 critically evaluated.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49605171","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}
Decades after the Second World War, fascism is still rife in Europe. After acknowledging a certain difficulty on the part of contemporary antifascist arguers to affirm their tenets and discredit those of their opponents, this investigation looks back at the past to examine an inspiring antifascist speech. The speech that socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti delivered to the Italian Parliament in 1924 is analysed though the methodological lens of Pragma-dialectics, focusing on the notions of strategic manoeuvring, argumentative structure and argumentative style. The results show that Matteotti’s argumentation against the fascists hinged on facts and rules as premises of argumentation. The speaker supported his arguments with factual evidence and organised them in a multiple argumentation structure. In addition, he “dressed up” his speech, apparently characterised by a detached argumentative style, with traits of a more engaged style, whose combination has turned Matteotti’s invective against the fascist regime into an argumentative masterpiece.
{"title":"Antifascist argumentation in Giacomo Matteotti’s 1924 speech to the Italian Parliament","authors":"E. Brambilla","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21022.bra","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21022.bra","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Decades after the Second World War, fascism is still rife in Europe. After acknowledging a certain difficulty on the part of contemporary antifascist arguers to affirm their tenets and discredit those of their opponents, this investigation looks back at the past to examine an inspiring antifascist speech. The speech that socialist leader Giacomo Matteotti delivered to the Italian Parliament in 1924 is analysed though the methodological lens of Pragma-dialectics, focusing on the notions of strategic manoeuvring, argumentative structure and argumentative style. The results show that Matteotti’s argumentation against the fascists hinged on facts and rules as premises of argumentation. The speaker supported his arguments with factual evidence and organised them in a multiple argumentation structure. In addition, he “dressed up” his speech, apparently characterised by a detached argumentative style, with traits of a more engaged style, whose combination has turned Matteotti’s invective against the fascist regime into an argumentative masterpiece.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2022-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41343089","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}
Sponsorships on YouTube – i.e., video creators on YouTube promoting a third-party product or service to their audience – have attracted considerable research interest recently in various disciplines. This multidisciplinary study analyzes it from the perspective of argumentation theory, specifically pragma-dialectics, which offers valuable new insights into the discursive tensions inherent to this type of promotion. These tensions arise between the creator’s relationship with their audience on the one hand, which is built upon ‘parasocial’ evaluations of authenticity and community, and the commercial third party brand on the other. The insights provided by the pragma-dialectic analysis are demonstrated by means of a case study examining a sponsorship segment by YouTuber PewDiePie, which shows that creators can employ specific types of presentational choices and audience adaptation strategically to undercut commitment to the sponsor while furthering the relationship with their viewers.
{"title":"“Completely impartial opinion, okay?”","authors":"Maarten Bogaards","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19020.bog","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19020.bog","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Sponsorships on YouTube – i.e., video creators on YouTube promoting a third-party product or service to their audience – have attracted considerable research interest recently in various disciplines. This multidisciplinary study analyzes it from the perspective of argumentation theory, specifically pragma-dialectics, which offers valuable new insights into the discursive tensions inherent to this type of promotion. These tensions arise between the creator’s relationship with their audience on the one hand, which is built upon ‘parasocial’ evaluations of authenticity and community, and the commercial third party brand on the other. The insights provided by the pragma-dialectic analysis are demonstrated by means of a case study examining a sponsorship segment by YouTuber PewDiePie, which shows that creators can employ specific types of presentational choices and audience adaptation strategically to undercut commitment to the sponsor while furthering the relationship with their viewers.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47287841","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 Mohammed (2018):","authors":"C. Degano","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19022.deg","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19022.deg","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42996445","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}
Political press conferences are important spaces for public accountability because they give journalists the opportunity to scrutinize politicians’ decisions. However, the structure of press conferences poses specific constraints to journalists because their role is limited to ask questions. This situation is not problematic if their goal is to ask informative or critical questions, but it becomes problematic if journalists want to advance standpoints, arguments, or criticisms. In the latter case, journalists have to perform their argumentative moves through façade questions in order to comply with the protocol of press conferences. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish the argumentative function of journalists’ questions, and consequently, their value for accountability. This paper draws on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to give an argumentative account of political press conferences. Furthermore, the implications of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes are discussed.
{"title":"Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability","authors":"Alfonso Hernández","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20005.her","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20005.her","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Political press conferences are important spaces for public accountability because they give journalists the opportunity to scrutinize politicians’ decisions. However, the structure of press conferences poses specific constraints to journalists because their role is limited to ask questions. This situation is not problematic if their goal is to ask informative or critical questions, but it becomes problematic if journalists want to advance standpoints, arguments, or criticisms. In the latter case, journalists have to perform their argumentative moves through façade questions in order to comply with the protocol of press conferences. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish the argumentative function of journalists’ questions, and consequently, their value for accountability. This paper draws on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to give an argumentative account of political press conferences. Furthermore, the implications of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes are discussed.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41745516","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 study applies Leo Groarke’s (2019) ART approach and KC (Key Component) table method to social housing buildings designed by a significant Dutch architectural movement during the early twentieth century – the so-called Amsterdam School. Unlike members of other contemporary architectural movements, architects of the Amsterdam School seldom wrote about their theories or beliefs, leaving very little evidence about their feelings and attitudes apart from the architectural forms they constructed. The expressive designs of Amsterdam School social housing buildings Het Schip and De Dageraad present promising opportunities for theoretical reflection on architecture as a form of embodied visual and multimodal argumentation (‘bricks as arguments’), however, other theoretical tools may be necessary to supplement the ART approach in order to fashion a critical method capable of apprehending the full scope of argumentation in the complex and rich Dutch polylogue.
{"title":"Bricks as arguments","authors":"Sarah J. Constant","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20012.con","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20012.con","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study applies Leo Groarke’s (2019) ART approach and KC (Key Component) table\u0000 method to social housing buildings designed by a significant Dutch architectural movement during the early twentieth century – the so-called Amsterdam\u0000 School. Unlike members of other contemporary architectural movements, architects of the Amsterdam School seldom wrote about their theories\u0000 or beliefs, leaving very little evidence about their feelings and attitudes apart from the architectural forms they constructed. The\u0000 expressive designs of Amsterdam School social housing buildings Het Schip and De Dageraad present\u0000 promising opportunities for theoretical reflection on architecture as a form of embodied visual and multimodal argumentation (‘bricks as\u0000 arguments’), however, other theoretical tools may be necessary to supplement the ART approach in order to fashion a critical method\u0000 capable of apprehending the full scope of argumentation in the complex and rich Dutch polylogue.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45713913","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 article focuses on the analysis of Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in the First Olynthiac delivered in the Athenian Assembly of the People in 349 BC. It is a case study of the famous § 24 in which Demosthenes calls for the attack on Philip of Macedonia, based on a hypothetical reciprocal scenario: Philip would attack Athens in a similar situation. The first part of the paper offers an argumentative characterisation of the Assembly of the People. Subsequently, the historical and situational circumstances of the speech are described, and an argumentative reconstruction of Demosthenes’ speech is presented. The evaluation of the speech’s context serves as a reference point for the analysis of strategic maneuvering by putting forward the argument in § 24. The argument is analysed in terms of three strategic maneuvering aspects: choice of topical potential, adaptation to audience demands, and presentational devices.
{"title":"Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in the First Olynthiac","authors":"I. Svačinová","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20013.sva","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20013.sva","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The article focuses on the analysis of Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in the First Olynthiac delivered in the Athenian Assembly of the People in 349 BC. It is a case study of the famous § 24 in which Demosthenes calls for the attack on Philip of Macedonia, based on a hypothetical reciprocal scenario: Philip would attack Athens in a similar situation. The first part of the paper offers an argumentative characterisation of the Assembly of the People. Subsequently, the historical and situational circumstances of the speech are described, and an argumentative reconstruction of Demosthenes’ speech is presented. The evaluation of the speech’s context serves as a reference point for the analysis of strategic maneuvering by putting forward the argument in § 24. The argument is analysed in terms of three strategic maneuvering aspects: choice of topical potential, adaptation to audience demands, and presentational devices.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43306621","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 Brambilla (2020): The quest for argumentative equivalence. Argumentative patterns in political interpreting contexts","authors":"S. Greco","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20016.gre","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20016.gre","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41640350","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：