This study responds to van Eemeren’s (2019, 2021) call for research on the prototypical argumentative styles used in particular domains or communicative activity types by particular individuals or groups. It explores the argumentative style of Dutch politician Geert Wilders in presenting populist arguments, i.e., arguments claiming that if many people hold a certain standpoint, this standpoint should be accepted. A corpus study of 27 texts taken from the website of Wilders’s political party reveals four characteristics of this presentation that deviate significantly from the general descriptions of this type of argument given in the textbooks: (1) absence of indicators, (2) implicit standpoint, (3) wide range of verbs to indicate what “the people” think or believe, (4) use of a construction indicating that the speaker is acting as a mouthpiece (“on behalf of the people, I say”).
{"title":"The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style","authors":"H. Jansen, M. V. Leeuwen","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20020.jan","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20020.jan","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study responds to van Eemeren’s (2019, 2021) call for research on the prototypical argumentative styles used in particular domains or\u0000 communicative activity types by particular individuals or groups. It explores the argumentative style of Dutch politician Geert\u0000 Wilders in presenting populist arguments, i.e., arguments claiming that if many people hold a certain standpoint, this standpoint\u0000 should be accepted. A corpus study of 27 texts taken from the website of Wilders’s political party reveals four characteristics of\u0000 this presentation that deviate significantly from the general descriptions of this type of argument given in the textbooks: (1) absence of indicators, (2) implicit standpoint, (3) wide range of verbs to indicate what “the people” think or believe, (4) use of\u0000 a construction indicating that the speaker is acting as a mouthpiece (“on behalf of the people, I say”).","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45759635","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}
Argumentative style is assumed to be instrumental to the implementation of an arguer’s strategic plan to resolve a difference of opinion in his/her favor. One important constitutive element of argumentative style are linguistic choices. It is therefore crucial to pay close and systematic attention to linguistic choices and their argumentative functions in the analysis of argumentative style. In this paper we discuss how a linguistic-stylistic analysis can be conducted systematically by making use of methodological insights from the so-called “linguistic-stylistic approach”, and how such an analysis can be integrated with a pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse. Our aim is to show how such an integration could be helpful in analysing the presentational aspect of an argumentative style, and how the outcomes of such an analysis could be linked to another aspect of argumentative style, namely the strategic considerations implemented in the argumentative discourse and more particularly the argumentative strategies involved.
{"title":"On the relation between argumentative style and linguistic style","authors":"T. V. Haaften, M. V. Leeuwen","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20014.haa","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20014.haa","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Argumentative style is assumed to be instrumental to the implementation of an arguer’s strategic plan to resolve a\u0000 difference of opinion in his/her favor. One important constitutive element of argumentative style are linguistic choices. It is\u0000 therefore crucial to pay close and systematic attention to linguistic choices and their argumentative functions in the analysis of\u0000 argumentative style.\u0000 In this paper we discuss how a linguistic-stylistic analysis can be conducted systematically by making use of\u0000 methodological insights from the so-called “linguistic-stylistic approach”, and how such an analysis can be integrated with a\u0000 pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse. Our aim is to show how such an integration could be helpful in analysing\u0000 the presentational aspect of an argumentative style, and how the outcomes of such an analysis could be linked to another aspect of\u0000 argumentative style, namely the strategic considerations implemented in the argumentative discourse and more particularly the\u0000 argumentative strategies involved.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41811509","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}
Frans H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, S. Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon H. M. Labrie, F. Leal, Peng Wu
{"title":"Argumentative Style","authors":"Frans H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, S. Greco, Ton van Haaften, Nanon H. M. Labrie, F. Leal, Peng Wu","doi":"10.1075/jaic.10.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.10.1","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2021-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49064150","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 outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.
{"title":"Deliberating over legislative ends","authors":"Constanza Ihnen Jory","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19010.ihn","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper outlines a non-exhaustive inventory of presumptive argument schemes that can be used by legislators to\u0000 rationally argue for and against the legitimacy of legislative ends. The inventory has both a descriptive and normative dimension. The\u0000 inventory is descriptive because it is partly based on the empirical observation of arguments actually used by legislators in a sample of\u0000 lawmaking debates. However, the inventory is also normative because – as I shall argue in this paper – the schemes identified in the sample\u0000 are presumptive arguments schemes. They are therefore schemes with a claim to rationality, provided that certain conditions are met. The\u0000 schemes included in the inventory are: the scheme of instrumental argumentation, the scheme from unintended consequences, the scheme from\u0000 values, the schemes from model and antimodel, and the schemes from social demand.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700324","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 article moves from the premise that a bilateral relationship between law and economics requires the contribution of the theory of legal argumentation. The article shows that, to be legally relevant, economic consequences have to be incorporated into interpretive arguments. In this regard, the jurisprudential preface strategy proposed by Craswell goes in the right direction, but begs the question of why the legally relevant consequences have to be assessed in terms of total welfare maximization instead of, in the EU context at least, consumer welfare maximization. After having identified five points of divergence between total and consumer welfare approaches, the article draws from legal inferentialism to propose an analytical tool – the explanatory scorekeeping model – for assessing the explanatory power of these two approaches. The model is then applied to the reasoning in United Brands Company v. Commission.
{"title":"Economic consequences for lawyers","authors":"F. Esposito, Giovanni Tuzet","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19013.esp","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19013.esp","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article moves from the premise that a bilateral relationship between law and economics requires the contribution of\u0000 the theory of legal argumentation. The article shows that, to be legally relevant, economic consequences have to be incorporated into\u0000 interpretive arguments. In this regard, the jurisprudential preface strategy proposed by Craswell goes in the right direction, but begs the\u0000 question of why the legally relevant consequences have to be assessed in terms of total welfare maximization instead of, in the EU context\u0000 at least, consumer welfare maximization. After having identified five points of divergence between total and consumer welfare approaches,\u0000 the article draws from legal inferentialism to propose an analytical tool – the explanatory scorekeeping model – for assessing the\u0000 explanatory power of these two approaches. The model is then applied to the reasoning in United Brands Company v.\u0000 Commission.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44934228","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 article reflects on the reasonableness of populist arguments supporting a prescriptive standpoint in the context of deliberation (which I call ‘deliberative’ populist arguments). A literature survey shows a divide between authors who claim that populist arguments are always fallacious and those who think that in some situations they can be reasonable, including the context of political deliberation. It is then argued that deliberative populist arguments are based on a linking premise that appeals to majority opinion as a principle of democracy. This linking premise differs from the one underlying the traditional interpretation of a fallacious populist argument (argumentum ad populum) and appears at first sight to make the argument reasonable. However, I conclude that a deliberative populist argument is also unreasonable, because it acts merely as a trump card, creating a false impression about democracy and avoiding engagement in real debate and substantive reasons.
本文反思了民粹主义论点在审议背景下支持规定立场的合理性（我称之为“审议”民粹主义论点）。一项文献调查显示，声称民粹主义论点总是错误的作者和认为在某些情况下，包括在政治审议的背景下，这些论点是合理的作者之间存在分歧。然后有人认为，深思熟虑的民粹主义论点是基于一个联系的前提，这个前提作为民主原则吸引了大多数人的意见。这种联系的前提不同于传统上对谬误的民粹主义论点（argumentum ad populum）的解释，并且乍一看是为了使论点合理。然而，我的结论是，深思熟虑的民粹主义论点也是不合理的，因为它只是一张王牌，制造了对民主的错误印象，避免了参与真正的辩论和实质性的原因。
{"title":"“The people want it”","authors":"H. Jansen","doi":"10.1075/jaic.17028.jan","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17028.jan","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article reflects on the reasonableness of populist arguments supporting a prescriptive standpoint in the context of\u0000 deliberation (which I call ‘deliberative’ populist arguments). A literature survey shows a divide between authors who claim that populist\u0000 arguments are always fallacious and those who think that in some situations they can be reasonable, including the context of political\u0000 deliberation. It is then argued that deliberative populist arguments are based on a linking premise that appeals to majority opinion as a\u0000 principle of democracy. This linking premise differs from the one underlying the traditional interpretation of a fallacious populist\u0000 argument (argumentum ad populum) and appears at first sight to make the argument reasonable. However, I conclude that a\u0000 deliberative populist argument is also unreasonable, because it acts merely as a trump card, creating a false impression about democracy and\u0000 avoiding engagement in real debate and substantive reasons.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46219113","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":"Marcelo Danesi and Sara Greco (Eds.). (2016). Case studies in discourse analysis","authors":"D. Mohammed","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18013.moh","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18013.moh","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45870903","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 article is guided by the question: What are the argumentative functions of personal stories in public deliberations? Drawing on the analytical traditions of argumentation theory and discourse analysis, we analyzed three public forums on mental illness, where personal stories were used in a number of argumentative functions. Our analysis reveals that in a deliberative forum personal stories were used as negotiable arguments rather than as mere assertions of individual experience. Personal stories were primarily used as arguments by example to challenge the framing proposed by the moderator and to pitch problem definitions that participants considered most relevant. In this function, personal stories were alternatively engaged as inductive or abductive arguments by other forum participants. Additionally, personal stories were used to support solution proposals and to uphold social ideals.
{"title":"“Well, in the case of my mom…”","authors":"E. Lukianova, Timothy R. Steffensmeier","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19005.luk","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19005.luk","url":null,"abstract":"This article is guided by the question: What are the argumentative functions of personal stories in public deliberations? Drawing on the analytical traditions of argumentation theory and discourse analysis, we analyzed three public forums on mental illness, where personal stories were used in a number of argumentative functions. Our analysis reveals that in a deliberative forum personal stories were used as negotiable arguments rather than as mere assertions of individual experience. Personal stories were primarily used as arguments by example to challenge the framing proposed by the moderator and to pitch problem definitions that participants considered most relevant. In this function, personal stories were alternatively engaged as inductive or abductive arguments by other forum participants. Additionally, personal stories were used to support solution proposals and to uphold social ideals.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42477566","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":"C. Ilie & G. Garzone, Eds. (2017) Argumentation across communities of practice. Multi-disciplinary\u0000 perspectives","authors":"C. Andone","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19037.and","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19037.and","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41678884","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.
{"title":"Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings","authors":"F. Unuabonah","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19004.ola","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19004.ola","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2020-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700277","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：