{"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":null,"pages":null},"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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}
{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
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":null,"pages":null},"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 van Eemeren, Garssen & Labrie (2021): Argumentation between doctors and patients: Understanding critical argumentative discourse","authors":"S. Rubinelli","doi":"10.1075/jaic.21017.rub","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21017.rub","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43113275","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}
Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.
{"title":"Be reasonable!","authors":"E. Krabbe, Jan Albert Van Laar","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.19021.KRA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.19021.KRA","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Are we living in an age of unreason? And what to do about it? Can we combat unreason? We discuss situations in which one may presume to be confronted with unreasonable behavior by an interlocutor: fallacies, changing rules of the game, shifting to some other type of dialogue, and abandonment of reasonable dialogue. We recommend ways that could be helpful to obtain a return to reason. These possibilities lead us to a moderately optimistic conclusion.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79852708","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 presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political, environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand, topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in the national energy production.
{"title":"Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues","authors":"Dorottya Egres","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.20003.EGR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.20003.EGR","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper presents the analysis of the Hungarian nuclear expansion controversy using a conceptual framework that\u0000 links strategic maneuvering with an extended polylogical controversy and evaluates the strategic maneuvering of political,\u0000 environmentalist and expert actors. The paper aims to show that the three aspects of strategic maneuvering (audience demand,\u0000 topical potential, presentational devices) are flexible enough that they can be analyzed when the object of study is not a\u0000 spatially and temporally localized argumentative situation, but a decade-long debate with multiple actors. In 2014, Hungary signed\u0000 a deal with Russia to finance 80% of the investment costs and supply two new reactors to maintain the 40–50% of nuclear energy in\u0000 the national energy production.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43325223","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 (2018): Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective","authors":"M. Kienpointner","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.00013.KIE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.00013.KIE","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48110778","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：