Abstract This paper analyzes an important genre in the public debates before popular votes in Switzerland: the TV addresses in which the Swiss government presents its standpoint and main arguments for or against the proposal put to the vote. The paper investigates a series of addresses in order to characterize the argumentation in them. The question is whether the addresses show similarities and, if there are any, what their pragmatic effects on the argumentation might be. The addresses are studied with concepts and methods from linguistics and argumentation theory: with regard to the role of the non-verbal modes, the composition, the relation between argumentation and other practices, the argumentative macro- and micro-structure, and personal references. In all these aspects, recurrent features can be identified. Many of these features can be understood as highly functional for the Swiss political system with its far-reaching direct democratic rights. They effectuate an argumentation that is rather informative than confrontational.
{"title":"The TV addresses of the Swiss government before popular votes","authors":"Juliane Schröter","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18049.sch","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18049.sch","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper analyzes an important genre in the public debates before popular votes in Switzerland: the TV addresses in which the Swiss government presents its standpoint and main arguments for or against the proposal put to the vote. The paper investigates a series of addresses in order to characterize the argumentation in them. The question is whether the addresses show similarities and, if there are any, what their pragmatic effects on the argumentation might be. The addresses are studied with concepts and methods from linguistics and argumentation theory: with regard to the role of the non-verbal modes, the composition, the relation between argumentation and other practices, the argumentative macro- and micro-structure, and personal references. In all these aspects, recurrent features can be identified. Many of these features can be understood as highly functional for the Swiss political system with its far-reaching direct democratic rights. They effectuate an argumentation that is rather informative than confrontational.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"8 1","pages":"285-316"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49573694","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 In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.
{"title":"“Doctor, I disagree”","authors":"Nanon H. M. Labrie","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18018.lab","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18018.lab","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"8 1","pages":"336-353"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41318230","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 reviews The maneuvering Paul: A pragma-dialectical analysis of Paul’s argumentation in First Corinthians 4:18–7:40
这篇文章回顾了保罗的策略：对保罗在《哥林多前书》4:18-7:40中论证的实用主义辩证分析
{"title":"Niilo Lahti (2017) The maneuvering Paul: A pragma-dialectical\u0000 analysis of Paul’s argumentation in First Corinthians\u0000 4:18–7:40","authors":"M. Hietanen","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18002.hie","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18002.hie","url":null,"abstract":"This article reviews The maneuvering Paul: A pragma-dialectical analysis of Paul’s argumentation in First Corinthians 4:18–7:40","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"8 1","pages":"383-391"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46026592","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 focuses on the use of scientific insights for justifying decisions in policy-making. Because in policy-making the politician argues for a future course of action by pointing at its positive consequences, the burden of proof should concern not only the scientific arguments, but also the pragmatic arguments. We show how the political justificatory process takes place that combines the two argument types, and we propose criteria for assessing the quality of the justifications. Based on our theoretical findings, we provide a case-study analysis of the Paris Agreement on climate change in which we demonstrate how the politicians attempt to meet their burden of proof imposed by pragmatic and scientific argumentation.
{"title":"Scientific arguments in policy-making","authors":"C. Andone, J. A. Hernández","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18040.and","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18040.and","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper focuses on the use of scientific insights for\u0000 justifying decisions in policy-making. Because in policy-making the politician\u0000 argues for a future course of action by pointing at its positive consequences,\u0000 the burden of proof should concern not only the scientific arguments, but also\u0000 the pragmatic arguments. We show how the political justificatory process takes\u0000 place that combines the two argument types, and we propose criteria for\u0000 assessing the quality of the justifications. Based on our theoretical findings,\u0000 we provide a case-study analysis of the Paris Agreement on climate change in\u0000 which we demonstrate how the politicians attempt to meet their burden of proof\u0000 imposed by pragmatic and scientific argumentation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48351934","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}
Philosophical argumentation presents a puzzle for pragma-dialectics: both from the perspective of 2500 years of history and from what we can ourselves witness in the present, philosophers seem to be exclusively intent on strengthening and elaborating their differences of opinion. Nothing like that happens in other academic endeavors. This is an anomaly in pragma-dialectical terms because, if philosophical discussants do not want to resolve their differences of opinion, then they would seem to be unreasonable by definition. In other words, no critical discussion would be possible in philosophy because of the peculiar way philosophers argue. The anomaly can, however, be dispelled by using the elementary distinction between single and multiple differences of opinion. It is argued that, in spite of occasional appearances, all philosophical differences of opinion are multiple. From that it is argued that the ‘institutional point’ (van Eemeren, 2010) of philosophy is to create the broadest map of arguable positions. If this is true, then philosophers may after all be pursuing a higher-order kind of consensus, bearing in particular on how many arguments can be marshaled around any given philosophical question.
{"title":"On philosophical argumentation","authors":"F. Leal","doi":"10.1075/jaic.19007.lea","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Philosophical argumentation presents a puzzle for\u0000 pragma-dialectics: both from the perspective of 2500 years of history and from\u0000 what we can ourselves witness in the present, philosophers seem to be\u0000 exclusively intent on strengthening and elaborating their differences of\u0000 opinion. Nothing like that happens in other academic endeavors. This is an\u0000 anomaly in pragma-dialectical terms because, if philosophical discussants do not\u0000 want to resolve their differences of opinion, then they would seem to be\u0000 unreasonable by definition. In other words, no critical discussion would be\u0000 possible in philosophy because of the peculiar way philosophers argue. The\u0000 anomaly can, however, be dispelled by using the elementary distinction between\u0000 single and multiple differences of opinion. It is argued that, in spite of\u0000 occasional appearances, all philosophical differences of\u0000 opinion are multiple. From that it is argued that the\u0000 ‘institutional point’ (van Eemeren,\u0000 2010) of philosophy is to create the broadest map of arguable\u0000 positions. If this is true, then philosophers may after all be pursuing a\u0000 higher-order kind of consensus, bearing in particular on how many arguments can\u0000 be marshaled around any given philosophical question.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47136138","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}
In this paper, we analyze the persuasive effects of conspiracy theories from a rhetorical and argumentative perspective. In particular, we scrutinize a case-study – the story of the “Stamina cure” in Italy –, interpreting it as a particular instance of conspiracy theory. First, we explain what conspiracy theories are, and why they are relevant within the contemporary health debate. Second, we situate our analysis in relation to other theoretical accounts, explaining why a discursive approach may be required to study conspiracies. Third, we investigate our case-study through the lenses of the three “entechnic” proofs of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and pathos. We conclude that a rhetorical approach can shed significant light on how conspiracies achieve their persuasive effect and it provides a first step toward the elaboration of a more comprehensive model to better address the practical and political implications of conspiracy argumentations.
{"title":"A rhetorical perspective on conspiracies","authors":"Roberta M Zagarella, M. Annoni","doi":"10.1075/jaic.18006.zag","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18006.zag","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In this paper, we analyze the persuasive effects of conspiracy\u0000 theories from a rhetorical and argumentative perspective. In particular, we\u0000 scrutinize a case-study – the story of the “Stamina cure” in Italy –,\u0000 interpreting it as a particular instance of conspiracy theory. First, we explain\u0000 what conspiracy theories are, and why they are relevant within the contemporary\u0000 health debate. Second, we situate our analysis in relation to other theoretical\u0000 accounts, explaining why a discursive approach may be required to study\u0000 conspiracies. Third, we investigate our case-study through the lenses of the\u0000 three “entechnic” proofs of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and\u0000 pathos. We conclude that a rhetorical approach can shed\u0000 significant light on how conspiracies achieve their persuasive effect and it\u0000 provides a first step toward the elaboration of a more comprehensive model to\u0000 better address the practical and political implications of conspiracy\u0000 argumentations.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45738419","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}
Impartiality is one of the core values underlying the administration of justice. A complaint about a judge’s supposed lack of impartiality may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behavior. In this article I will analyze complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical questions during court hearings. I will explore what role these complaints may play in the strategic maneuvering of a party who seeks the judge’s disqualification.
{"title":"Challenging judicial impartiality","authors":"H. Plug","doi":"10.1075/jaic.17026.plu","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17026.plu","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Impartiality is one of the core values underlying the\u0000 administration of justice. A complaint about a judge’s supposed lack of\u0000 impartiality may be filed on the grounds of the judge’s verbal behavior. In this\u0000 article I will analyze complaints that concern the judge’s use of rhetorical\u0000 questions during court hearings. I will explore what role these complaints may\u0000 play in the strategic maneuvering of a party who seeks the judge’s\u0000 disqualification.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46856515","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}
With the help of the extended pragma-dialectical theory, this paper aims to analyze how Al Aswany, an Egyptian political columnist who argued in favor of the feasibility of democratization before the Arab Spring, maneuvered strategically by argumentation from example in two of his columns in supporting the standpoint that the Egyptian people had become no longer politically inactive. The analysis is conducted in view of the institutional preconditions of political columns and the specific rhetorical exigency a columnist may face in this specific argumentative situation.
{"title":"The strategic use of argumentation from example in\u0000 re-evaluating a people","authors":"A. A. Omar","doi":"10.1075/jaic.17031.oma","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17031.oma","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 With the help of the extended pragma-dialectical theory, this\u0000 paper aims to analyze how Al Aswany, an Egyptian political columnist who argued\u0000 in favor of the feasibility of democratization before the Arab Spring,\u0000 maneuvered strategically by argumentation from example in two of his columns in\u0000 supporting the standpoint that the Egyptian people had become no longer\u0000 politically inactive. The analysis is conducted in view of the institutional\u0000 preconditions of political columns and the specific rhetorical exigency a\u0000 columnist may face in this specific argumentative situation.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41414837","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":"Chapter 11. “Argumentexturing”","authors":"M. Baker, B. Schwarz","doi":"10.1075/aic.17.11bak","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.11bak","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90784091","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":"Chapter 9. Radically reframing the climate debate","authors":"J. Goodwin","doi":"10.1075/aic.17.09goo","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.09goo","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8,"publicationDate":"2019-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78329209","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：