Volume 5, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


This paper explores the viability of a synergy between corpus linguistics and the study of argumentation in context. While quantitative approaches to the study of discourse have been profitably integrated at the levels of lexico-grammar and syntax, more rarely has this been the case for higher levels of analysis such as argumentative structures. Such an approach would help identify those recurring patterns of argumentation that build up cumulatively, and which can only be identified in larger samples of discourse. In particular this paper concerns how the tools of corpus linguistics can be put to use for the analysis of strategic manoeuvring, and especially topical selection. In order to do so, the televised prime ministerial debates held on the occasion of the 2010 general election in the UK will be taken as a case study, with a focus on the use of linguistic indicators that might help retrieve argumentative patterns.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Baker, Paul
    2006Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London/New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Benoit, William L
    2003 “Presidential Campaign Discourse as a Causal Factor in Election Outcome.” Western Journal of Communication67: 97–112.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2007Communication in Political Campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Benoit, William L. , and William T. Wells
    1996Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benveniste, Émile
    1966Problèmes de lingàstique generale. Paris, Gallimard; It. transl., 1971. Problemi di linguistica generale. Milano, Il Saggiatore.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishop, George F. , Robert G. Meadow , and Marilyn Jackson-Beeck
    (eds) 1980The Presidential Debates: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlin, Diana B. , and Mitchell S. McKinney
    (eds) 1994The 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Degano, Chiara
    2007 “Presupposition and Dissociation in Discourse: A Corpus Study.” Argumentation21: 361–378. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9058‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9058-7 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2008Discorsi di guerra: il prologo del conflitto iracheno nella stampa britannica e italiana. Milano: LED Edizioni Universitarie.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2010 “Indicators of Argumentation in Arbitration Awards: A Diachronic Perspective.” InThe Discourses of Dispute Resolution, ed. by Vijay K. Bhatia , Christopher N. Candlin , and Maurizio Gottiin . 189–205. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2012a “Arguments by Analogy in Arbitration Awards.” InArbitration Awards: Generic Features and Textual Realisations, ed. by Vijay K. Bhatia , Giuliana Garzone , and Chiara Degano , 138–151. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 2012bDiscourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Corpora. An Integrated Approach. Milano: Arcipelago Edizioni.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2014 “Genre Variation in Electoral Campaigns: Adaptation to the Audience in UK Posters and TV Debates.” InEvolution in Genres: Emergence, Variation, Multimodality, ed. by Paola Evangelisti Allori , Vijay K. Bhatia , and John A. Bateman , 327–355. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Firth, John R
    1957/1968 “A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930-55.” InStudies in Linguistic Analysis (special volume of the Philological Society), Oxford, The Philological Society: 1–32; reprinted in Palmer, F. R. (ed.), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952-59, London, Longman: 168-205.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Flowerdew, Lynne
    2011 “Corpus Based Critical Discourse Analysis.” Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics 2011, conference , ICC Birmingham, 20-22 July.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Friedenberg, Robert V
    (ed) 1994Rhetorical Studies of National Political Debates, 1960-1992. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Garzone, Giuliana , and Francesca Santulli
    2004 “What can Corpus Linguistics do for Critical Discourse Analysis?” InCorpora and Discourse, ed. by Alan Partington , John Morley , and Louann Haarman , 351–368. Bern: Peter Lang:
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Halliday, Michael A.K
    1994 [1985]An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hellweg, Susan A. , Micheal Pfau , and Robert B. Steven
    1992Televised Presidential Debates: Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hinck, Edward A
    1993Enacting the Presidency: Political Argument, Presidential Debates, and Presidential Character. Westport, CT: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jamieson, Kathleen H. , and David S. Birdsell
    1988Presidential Debates: The Challenge of Creating an Informed Electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnson, Danette I
    2005 “Feminine Style in Presidential Debate Discourse, 1960-2000.” Communication Quarterly53 (1): 3–20. doi: 10.1080/01463370500055814
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370500055814 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kraus, Sidney
    2000Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Mayer, Michael A. , and Diana B. Carlin
    1994 “Debates as a Voter Education Tool.” InThe 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus, ed. by Diana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney , 127–138. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mazzi, Davide
    2007 “The Construction of Argumentation in Judicial Texts: Combining a Genre and a Corpus Perspective.” Argumentation21: 21–38. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9020‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9020-8 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012, “Analogy in History. A Corpus-Based Study.” InExploring Argumentative Contexts, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen , 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.4.07maz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.4.07maz [Google Scholar]
  27. McEnery, Tony , and Andrew Wilson
    1996Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Minow, Newton N. , and Craig L. LaMay
    2008Inside the Presidential Debates - Their Improbable Past and Promising Future. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226530390.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226530390.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mochales, Raquel , and Aagie Ieven
    2009 “Creating an Argumentation Corpus: Do Theories Apply to Real Arguments? A Case Study on the Legal Argumentation of the ECHR.” In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law . New York: ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Norrick, Neil
    2000Conversational Narrative: Storytelling in Everyday Talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.203
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.203 [Google Scholar]
  31. O’Halloran, Kieran A
    2009 “Implicit Dialogical Premises, Explanation as Argument: A Corpus-Based Reconstruction.” Informal Logic29 (1): 15–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Partington, Alan , John Morley , and Louann Haarman
    (eds) 2004Corpora and Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Perelman, Chaim , and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
    1969The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press(trans.). [1958. Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhetorique, Presses Universitaires de France].
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Reed, Chris
    2006 “Preliminary Results from an Argument Corpus.” InLinguistics in the Twenty-First Century, ed. by Eloína M. Bermúdez and Leonel R. Miyares , 185–196. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Rigotti, Eddo , and Andrea Rocci
    2005 “From Argument Analysis to Cultural Keywords (and Back Again)”. InArgumentation in Practice, ed. by Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 125–142.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cvs.2.11rig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.11rig [Google Scholar]
  36. Rocci, Andrea
    2009 “Modalities as Indicators in Argumentative Reconstruction.” InPondering on Problems of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen , 207–228. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑9165‑0_15
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_15 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rubinelli, Sara
    2009Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dortdecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Sala, Michele
    2008 “Argumentative Styles as Cultural Identity Traits in Legal Studies.” InIdentity Traits in English Academic Discourse, ed. byDavide S. Giannoni and Stefania Maci , Special issue of Linguistica e Filologia, 27: 93–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Santulli, Francesca
    2010 “Costruire il mito fra l’enunciazione e la performatività: Obama et alii .” InVisione politica e strategie linguistiche, ed. by Donatella Montini , 65–77. Roma: Rubettino.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  41. Schroeder, Alan
    2000 [2008]Presidential Debates: Forty Years of High-Risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Scott, Mike
    2004Wordsmith Tools 4. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2004Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. Oxon: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Stubbs, Michael
    1996Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-Assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. van Eemeren, Frans H
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragmadialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  47. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragmadialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragmadialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. van Eemeren, Frans H. , Rob Grootendorst , and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2002Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. van Eemeren, Frans H. , and Peter Houtlosser
    2002 “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” InDialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 2006 “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation20: 381–392. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
  52. van Eemeren, Frans H. , Peter Houtlosser , and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragmadialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. van Rees, M. Agnes
    2005 “Indicators of Dissociation.” InArgumentation in Practice, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser , 53–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cvs.2.06ree
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.06ree [Google Scholar]
  54. Walton, Douglas , Chris Reed , and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  55. Žagar, Igor Ž
    2007 “Arguing from Large Corpora: Some Epistemological and Methodological Dilemmas; Experimental Study Aimed at Quantifying Political Argumentation.” InProceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , J. Anthony Blair , Charles A. Willard , and Bart Garssen , 1553–1558. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zarefsky, David
    2009 “Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation.” InExamining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen Studies on Strategic Maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren , 115–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.1.08zaf
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.1.08zaf [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error