In this paper, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus conference (conference de citoyens) and public hearing (debat public). While both methods are used in order to involve the public in decision making about science and technology policy, they differ in a number of aspects. Consensus conference seeks the active participation of a selected group of citizens who are expected to elaborate cooperatively a text of recommendations. Public hearing seeks to inform the public and to collect as many reactions by it as possible. In our analysis, we consider the characteristics of these two methods described in the social and political sciences literature as institutional constraints that can play a role in the production of argumentative discourse. We focus our study on the discourse produced in two concrete instances of the application of these participatory methods on the deliberation over the development of nanotechnology in France. More specifically, we study the expression of counter discourse and seek to describe how the participants in the two deliberation processes end up managing the institutional constraints in order to have their criticisms expressed. In this way, we propose a bottom-up approach to the theorization of the role that institutional context plays in the practice of argumentation, and discuss the descriptive adequacy of existing definitions of the deliberative genre within argumentation studies.
在本文中，我们考察了公众参与的两种方式，即共识会议(conference de citoyens)和公众听证会(debate public)。虽然这两种方法都是为了让公众参与科学和技术政策的决策，但它们在许多方面有所不同。协商一致会议寻求选定的一组公民的积极参与，期望他们合作拟订一份建议案文。公开听证会旨在告知公众，并通过它收集尽可能多的反应。在我们的分析中，我们认为社会和政治科学文献中描述的这两种方法的特征是制度约束，可以在论辩话语的产生中发挥作用。我们将研究重点放在两个具体实例中产生的话语上，这些具体实例是在审议法国纳米技术的发展时应用这些参与式方法。更具体地说，我们研究反话语的表达，并试图描述两种审议过程的参与者最终如何管理制度约束，以便表达他们的批评。通过这种方式，我们提出了一种自下而上的方法来理论化制度背景在论证实践中所起的作用，并讨论了在论证研究中审议类型的现有定义的描述性充分性。
{"title":"The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation: the conférence de citoyens and the débat public on nanotechnologies in France","authors":"Marianne Doury, A. Tseronis","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.2.1.04DOU","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.2.1.04DOU","url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we examine two methods of public participation, namely consensus conference (conference de citoyens) and public hearing (debat public). While both methods are used in order to involve the public in decision making about science and technology policy, they differ in a number of aspects. Consensus conference seeks the active participation of a selected group of citizens who are expected to elaborate cooperatively a text of recommendations. Public hearing seeks to inform the public and to collect as many reactions by it as possible. In our analysis, we consider the characteristics of these two methods described in the social and political sciences literature as institutional constraints that can play a role in the production of argumentative discourse. We focus our study on the discourse produced in two concrete instances of the application of these participatory methods on the deliberation over the development of nanotechnology in France. More specifically, we study the expression of counter discourse and seek to describe how the participants in the two deliberation processes end up managing the institutional constraints in order to have their criticisms expressed. In this way, we propose a bottom-up approach to the theorization of the role that institutional context plays in the practice of argumentation, and discuss the descriptive adequacy of existing definitions of the deliberative genre within argumentation studies.","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.2.1.04DOU","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700851","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}
1. Introduction 2. Articles 3. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation (by Eemeren, Frans H. van) 4. Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate (by Garssen, Bart) 5. Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary Debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point (by Mohammed, Dima) 6. The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation: The conference de citoyens and the debat public on nanotechnologies in France (by Doury, Marianne) 7. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services (by Aakhus, Mark) 8. (How) do participants in online discussion forums create 'echo chambers'?: The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate change (by Edwards, Arthur) 9. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases (by Lewinski, Marcin) 10. Subject index
1. 介绍2。文章3。3 .政治审议中辩论话语中的策略操纵(作者:Eemeren, Frans H. van)欧洲议会辩论中的战略操纵(巴特·加森著)在欧洲议会辩论中追求多重目标:以欧盟移民政策为例(作者:Mohammed, Dima)7.反话语在两种公共审议方法中的地位:法国的城市会议和关于纳米技术的公共辩论(作者:Doury, Marianne)。数字化审议:通过通信信息服务设计分歧空间(作者:Mark Aakhus)在线论坛的参与者如何创造“回音室”?9.关于气候变化的在线论坛对不同声音的包容和排斥(作者:Arthur Edwards)在多方在线审议中辩论多个立场:立场、立场和案例(作者:Lewinski, Marcin)主题标引
{"title":"Argumentation in political deliberation","authors":"M. Lewiński, D. Mohammed","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.2.1.00INT","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.2.1.00INT","url":null,"abstract":"1. Introduction 2. Articles 3. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation (by Eemeren, Frans H. van) 4. Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate (by Garssen, Bart) 5. Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary Debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point (by Mohammed, Dima) 6. The place of counter discourse in two methods of public deliberation: The conference de citoyens and the debat public on nanotechnologies in France (by Doury, Marianne) 7. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services (by Aakhus, Mark) 8. (How) do participants in online discussion forums create 'echo chambers'?: The inclusion and exclusion of dissenting voices in an online forum about climate change (by Edwards, Arthur) 9. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases (by Lewinski, Marcin) 10. Subject index","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.2.1.00INT","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700477","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}
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin Laden’s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: The Guardian and The Telegraph. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between sides, positions, and cases in argumentative deliberation is proposed.
{"title":"Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases","authors":"M. Lewiński","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.2.1.07LEW","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.2.1.07LEW","url":null,"abstract":"Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this paper is to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin Laden’s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: The Guardian and The Telegraph. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between sides, positions, and cases in argumentative deliberation is proposed.","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.2.1.07LEW","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58700455","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}
Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.
{"title":"A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends","authors":"Norah E. Dunbar, A. Johnson","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","url":null,"abstract":"Dyadic power theory (DPT; Dunbar 2004) predicts that equal and unequal-power dyads will seek to persuade one another differently because they use different control attempts. This paper seeks to expand the theory’s definition of control attempts beyond dominance by examining convergence behavior, topic avoidance, aggression, deception, and affection or support. Participants answered a survey about the way they interact with an interpersonal partner who is lower in power, equal in power, or higher in power than themselves. Results reveal that, consistent with DPT, equal power partners were more likely than high or low power partners to use a control attempt that emphasized equilibrium, and were more likely to use verbal affection and social support. However, equal power partners were also more likely to use deception and they reported their partner was least likely to be deceptive compared to the other power groups. Low power partners were more likely, compared to equal or high power, to be motivated to submit to their partner, to use topic avoidance, and to experience psychological aggression from their partner. The type of relationship moderated several of these effects.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.03DUN","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58702421","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: S.F. Aikin, R.B. Talisse (2014) Why we argue (and how we should): A guide to political disagreement]","authors":"C. Andone","doi":"10.1075/jaic.4.2.06and","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.4.2.06and","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/jaic.4.2.06and","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58702527","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}
Though interpreting is to a great extent about the interlinguistic reproduction of arguments, argumentation theory is almost completely overlooked by interpreting studies, which partly explains the frequent production of pragmatically inappropriate interpreted texts. Against the theoretical gap, the paper puts forward a descriptive argumentation approach to political speeches with a view to their simultaneous interpretation, in the spirit of making the case for a systematic contribution of argumentation studies to interpretation theory and training.
{"title":"Argumentative equivalence as the reproduction of strategic maneuvering in interpreted texts","authors":"E. Brambilla","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.3.03BRA","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.3.03BRA","url":null,"abstract":"Though interpreting is to a great extent about the interlinguistic reproduction of arguments, argumentation theory is almost completely overlooked by interpreting studies, which partly explains the frequent production of pragmatically inappropriate interpreted texts. Against the theoretical gap, the paper puts forward a descriptive argumentation approach to political speeches with a view to their simultaneous interpretation, in the spirit of making the case for a systematic contribution of argumentation studies to interpretation theory and training.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.3.03BRA","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703086","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}
Serial argument theory explains recurring conflict within personal relationships. The theory specifies that an arguer’s goals influence his/her tactics, leading to argument outcomes which include effects on the relationship. We extend this model in two ways. First we suggest that attachment styles predict serial argument goals. Second, we hypothesize that taking conflict personally (TCP) is an outcome of such arguments. University students (N = 682) completed a cross-sectional survey about their attachment styles and felt personalization regarding a serial argument they experienced. A structural equation model tested relationships between attachment styles, goals, tactics, outcomes, and TCP. Results indicated that attachment styles predict goals of serial arguing and serial argument outcomes predict TCP. The study shows that attachment styles have modest but statistically significant effects on goals of serial arguing in close relationships and that the tactics used in serial arguing predict the degree to which people take recurring conflict personally.
{"title":"Attachment style, serial argument, and taking conflict personally","authors":"Dale Hample, A. Richards","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.04HAM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.04HAM","url":null,"abstract":"Serial argument theory explains recurring conflict within personal relationships. The theory specifies that an arguer’s goals influence his/her tactics, leading to argument outcomes which include effects on the relationship. We extend this model in two ways. First we suggest that attachment styles predict serial argument goals. Second, we hypothesize that taking conflict personally (TCP) is an outcome of such arguments. University students (N = 682) completed a cross-sectional survey about their attachment styles and felt personalization regarding a serial argument they experienced. A structural equation model tested relationships between attachment styles, goals, tactics, outcomes, and TCP. Results indicated that attachment styles predict goals of serial arguing and serial argument outcomes predict TCP. The study shows that attachment styles have modest but statistically significant effects on goals of serial arguing in close relationships and that the tactics used in serial arguing predict the degree to which people take recurring conflict personally.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.04HAM","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58702109","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 uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.
{"title":"Irony in interpersonal conflict scenarios","authors":"Joshua M. Averbeck","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","url":null,"abstract":"The uses of indirect argument strategies, such as irony, remain understudied. This study examined a variety of ironic arguments and the production and suppression rather than reception of those arguments. Hyperbole, understatement, rhetorical question, jocularity, and sarcasm were examined in close versus distant relationships. Findings point to a tendency to use more negative arguments in closer relationships than those that are more casual. In sum, we are more likely to be negative in closer relationships despite what our typical behavior would indicate.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.1.05AVE","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58702234","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: N. Labrie (2014) For the sake of argument: considering the role, characteristics, and effects of argumentation in general practice consultation]","authors":"John Magnus R. Dahl, A. F. S. Henkemans","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.2.05DAH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.2.05DAH","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.2.05DAH","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58702461","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":"Rudi Palmieri (2014). Corporate Argumentation in Takeover Bids .","authors":"N. Brennan","doi":"10.1075/JAIC.4.3.06BRE","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/JAIC.4.3.06BRE","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1075/JAIC.4.3.06BRE","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"58703303","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：