{"title":"Eugen Octav Popa (2016). Thought Experiments in Academic Communication. A Pragma-Dialectical Method for Reconstructing the Argumentative Use of Imaginary Scenarios in Academic Disputes","authors":"Zohar Livnat","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.3.05LIV","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.05LIV","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.05LIV","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58704149","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}
It is an essential requirement of democracy that politicians provide account of their words and actions to the public. However, being able to account is especially important when a politician or the party he/she is representing is assumed responsible for a critical event that has undesirable consequences for the public. Under such a condition, political press conferences serve as an instrument for a politician to justify the position of the government by means of argumentation. By adopting the pragma-dialectical framework, this paper sets out to explain how a politician maneuvers strategically in a press conference for the purpose of diminishing political responsibility when his party which is in charge of the government is assumed responsible for a critical event. The paper draws its data from the political press conference held by Erdogan, a former Prime Minister of Turkey, following the mine accident that took place in Soma, Turkey, in 2014.
{"title":"Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event: The case of the soma mine disaster","authors":"Y. Demir","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.2.07DEM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.07DEM","url":null,"abstract":"It is an essential requirement of democracy that politicians provide account of their words and actions to the public. However, being able to account is especially important when a politician or the party he/she is representing is assumed responsible for a critical event that has undesirable consequences for the public. Under such a condition, political press conferences serve as an instrument for a politician to justify the position of the government by means of argumentation. By adopting the pragma-dialectical framework, this paper sets out to explain how a politician maneuvers strategically in a press conference for the purpose of diminishing political responsibility when his party which is in charge of the government is assumed responsible for a critical event. The paper draws its data from the political press conference held by Erdogan, a former Prime Minister of Turkey, following the mine accident that took place in Soma, Turkey, in 2014.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.07DEM","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58704372","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 investigates the apologies of four US politicians whose marital infidelities were made public. The paper notes the variations in the use of religious language, representations of the transgressions, and metadiscourse. These variations can be calibrated to political ethos, the nature of the transgression, and the amount of repair work required. Thus, generic qualities of the personal political apology are best interpreted as existing on a sliding scale relative to the situation.
{"title":"The sliding scales of repentance: Understanding variation in political apologies for infidelity","authors":"M. S. Cheng","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.2.03CHE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.03CHE","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the apologies of four US politicians whose marital infidelities were made public. The paper notes the variations in the use of religious language, representations of the transgressions, and metadiscourse. These variations can be calibrated to political ethos, the nature of the transgression, and the amount of repair work required. Thus, generic qualities of the personal political apology are best interpreted as existing on a sliding scale relative to the situation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.03CHE","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703734","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":"David Zarefsky (2014). Political Argumentation in the United States","authors":"G. Mitchell","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.2.06MIT","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.06MIT","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.06MIT","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703885","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}
Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments (fallacies) are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfair strategies vis-a-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s systematic refusal to take other parties seriously? What if one party continually forgoes any form of critical testing and instead resorts to threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? Or should one pay one’s opponent back in the same coin? To gain some grasp of these issues, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are fair, i.e. balanced, transparent, and tolerant. We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end, we stress the importance – especially for those whose opinions carry little weight – of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies are widespread.
{"title":"Fair and unfair strategies in public controversies","authors":"Jan Albert Van Laar, E. Krabbe","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.3.04KRA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.04KRA","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary theory of argumentation offers many insights about the ways in which, in the context of a public controversy, arguers should ideally present their arguments and criticize those of their opponents. We also know that in practice not all works out according to the ideal patterns: numerous kinds of derailments (fallacies) are an object of study for argumentation theorists. But how about the use of unfair strategies vis-a-vis one’s opponents? What if it is not a matter of occasional derailments but of one party’s systematic refusal to take other parties seriously? What if one party continually forgoes any form of critical testing and instead resorts to threats or blackmail? Can this be countered by the tools of reason? Or should one pay one’s opponent back in the same coin? To gain some grasp of these issues, we describe a number of strategies used in the public controversy about induced earthquakes in Groningen. We check whether these strategies are fair, i.e. balanced, transparent, and tolerant. We also investigate the effects of the choice for a particular kind of strategy. It appears that, in circumstances, choosing a fair strategy may be detrimental for resolving the controversy and choosing an unfair one beneficial. Following up ideas from social psychology and political science, we formulate some guidelines for the choice of strategies. At the end, we stress the importance – especially for those whose opinions carry little weight – of having a society in which the knowledge and skills needed for assessing the fairness of strategies are widespread.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.04KRA","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58704088","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 correlates argumentation, translation, and literature to construct a new model for assessing the quality of translated literature. Literary translation is described as being compatible with the rhetorical stream of argumentation studies, while the study rests on the overriding notion of ethics of difference in argumentative cross-cultural and translational encounters. The model incorporates ethics of difference and interpretive act, pragma-dialectical contributions of scheme/structure and rhetorical/dialectical situations, and aesthetic features including figures of speech and (sub)genres of literature. Application of the model to an English translation of a classical poem (a Rumi’s allegory) shows that the model can be systematically applied to quality assessment of translated literature (and literary genres e.g. plays, novels, audiovisual/cinematic products, etc.). Considering the implications and suggestions for further research, the study can progressively develop into a literary or cross-linguistic subgenre of argumentation theory, with implications for comparative literature, philosophy of meaning, translation theory, and dialectical hermeneutics.
{"title":"Argumentation-based literary translation quality assessment: A multidisciplinary model","authors":"Mohammad Ali Kharmandar","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.2.02KHA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.02KHA","url":null,"abstract":"This study correlates argumentation, translation, and literature to construct a new model for assessing the quality of translated literature. Literary translation is described as being compatible with the rhetorical stream of argumentation studies, while the study rests on the overriding notion of ethics of difference in argumentative cross-cultural and translational encounters. The model incorporates ethics of difference and interpretive act, pragma-dialectical contributions of scheme/structure and rhetorical/dialectical situations, and aesthetic features including figures of speech and (sub)genres of literature. Application of the model to an English translation of a classical poem (a Rumi’s allegory) shows that the model can be systematically applied to quality assessment of translated literature (and literary genres e.g. plays, novels, audiovisual/cinematic products, etc.). Considering the implications and suggestions for further research, the study can progressively develop into a literary or cross-linguistic subgenre of argumentation theory, with implications for comparative literature, philosophy of meaning, translation theory, and dialectical hermeneutics.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.2.02KHA","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703681","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 examines the argumentation in the case Janowiec and Others vs. Russia, heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR, or Court), primarily based on the hearings with additional references to the two judgments issued. The proffered analysis focuses on the types and forms of argumentation used in the counsels’ oral arguments, as well as their rhetorical strategies and tactics, as based on Douglas Walton’s argumentation schemes and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation. The starting point of the analyzed dispute is the verbal classification of the subject of the dispute, which reflects the different historical perspectives in the narratives about the Katyn crime, as related by the litigating parties and the court. The political and media context of this dispute in the Polish, Russian, and international public space is also considered.
{"title":"The Katyń court case: Stories about history, politics, and words","authors":"Anna Jopek-Bosiacka","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.3.03JOP","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.03JOP","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the argumentation in the case Janowiec and Others vs. Russia, heard before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (ECtHR, or Court), primarily based on the hearings with additional references to the two judgments issued. The proffered analysis focuses on the types and forms of argumentation used in the counsels’ oral arguments, as well as their rhetorical strategies and tactics, as based on Douglas Walton’s argumentation schemes and Stephen Toulmin’s model of argumentation. The starting point of the analyzed dispute is the verbal classification of the subject of the dispute, which reflects the different historical perspectives in the narratives about the Katyn crime, as related by the litigating parties and the court. The political and media context of this dispute in the Polish, Russian, and international public space is also considered.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.03JOP","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58704057","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 argues that surface-level analysis of political argument fails to explain the effectiveness of ideological enthymemes, particularly within the context of presidential debates. This paper uses the first presidential debate of the 2012 election as a case study for the use of “Obamacare” as an ideological enthymeme. The choice of a terminological system limits and shapes the argumentative choices afforded the candidate. Presidential debates provide a unique context within which to examine the interaction of ideological constraints and argument due to their relatively committed and ideologically homogenous audiences.
{"title":"Mitt Romney in Denver: “Obamacare” as Ideological Enthymeme","authors":"J. Kirk","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.5.3.01KIR","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.01KIR","url":null,"abstract":"This paper argues that surface-level analysis of political argument fails to explain the effectiveness of ideological enthymemes, particularly within the context of presidential debates. This paper uses the first presidential debate of the 2012 election as a case study for the use of “Obamacare” as an ideological enthymeme. The choice of a terminological system limits and shapes the argumentative choices afforded the candidate. Presidential debates provide a unique context within which to examine the interaction of ideological constraints and argument due to their relatively committed and ideologically homogenous audiences.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.5.3.01KIR","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703942","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":"Zohar Livnat (2012). Dialogue, Science and Academic Writing .","authors":"G. Zemplén","doi":"10.1075/jaic.4.3.04zem","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.3.04zem","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/jaic.4.3.04zem","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703147","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 examines the proposition advanced by Sunstein (2001) and other scholars that political online forums tend to be characterized by in-group homogeneity and group polarization. The paper adopts a process view of online forums and examines discussions within a time perspective. Five discussion lines on Climategate.nl (a skeptical Dutch online forum on climate change) are investigated. The research focuses on how participants react to the participation of dissidents and on the resulting processes of inclusion and exclusion. Climategate.nl moved in the direction of an ‘echo chamber’ gradually over time. Nevertheless, the forum was never completely homogeneous. The editors played an active role in the inclusion and exclusion of dissidents. A counter-steering moderation policy is needed to keep group polarization and homogenization within certain limits.
{"title":"(How) do participants in online discussion forums create 'echo chambers'? The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online discussion forum about climate change","authors":"Arthur R. Edwards","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.2.1.06EDW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.2.1.06EDW","url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the proposition advanced by Sunstein (2001) and other scholars that political online forums tend to be characterized by in-group homogeneity and group polarization. The paper adopts a process view of online forums and examines discussions within a time perspective. Five discussion lines on Climategate.nl (a skeptical Dutch online forum on climate change) are investigated. The research focuses on how participants react to the participation of dissidents and on the resulting processes of inclusion and exclusion. Climategate.nl moved in the direction of an ‘echo chamber’ gradually over time. Nevertheless, the forum was never completely homogeneous. The editors played an active role in the inclusion and exclusion of dissidents. A counter-steering moderation policy is needed to keep group polarization and homogenization within certain limits.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.2.1.06EDW","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700902","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：