1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280

Abstract

Abstract

Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei
2024-06-07
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jlac.00098.rei.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andone, Corina
    2015 “Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability.” Argumentation29 (1): 1–18. 10.1007/s10503‑014‑9334‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9334-2 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2017 “The Role of Pragmatic and Majority Argumentation in Reports of European Parliamentary Committees of Inquiry.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 53–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.04and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.04and [Google Scholar]
  3. Andone, Corina, and José Alfonso Lomelí Hernández
    2019 “Scientific Arguments in Policy-Making.” Journal of Argumentation in Context8 (2): 195–213. 10.1075/jaic.18040.and
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18040.and [Google Scholar]
  4. Auer, Jeffery J.
    1968 “The Counterfeit Debates.” InThe Great Debates. Background – Perspective – Effects, ed. bySidney Kraus, 142–150. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benoit, William L., and William T. Wells
    1996Candidates in Conflict: Persuasive Attack and Defense in the 1992 Presidential Debates. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bilmes, Jack
    1999 “Questions, Answers, and the Organization of Talk in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Fundamental Considerations.” Research on Language and Social Interaction32 (3): 213–242. 10.1207/S15327973RL320301
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RL320301 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitzer, Lloyd F., and Theodore Rueter
    1980Carter vs. Ford: The Counterfeit Debates of 1976. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Budzyńska-Daca, Agniezska, and Renata Botwina
    2015 “Pre-Election TV Debates – Persuasive Games between Ethos, Logos, and Pathos.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. byRăzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 39–54. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.26.03bud
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.03bud [Google Scholar]
  9. Carlin, Diana B., Eric Morris, and Shawna Smith
    2001 “The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates’ Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates.” American Behavioral Scientist44 (12): 2196–2218. 10.1177/00027640121958276
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00027640121958276 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carlin, Diana Prentice, Charles Howard, Susan Stanfield, and Larry Reynolds
    1991 “The Effects of Presidential Debate Formats on Clash: A Comparative Analysis.” Argumentation and Advocacy27 (3): 126–136. 10.1080/00028533.1991.11951517
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1991.11951517 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 “Argumentative Patterns Viewed from a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.02van [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Tjark Kruiger
    2015 “Identifying Argumentation Schemes.” InReasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 703–712. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_37
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_37 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellsworth, John W.
    1965 “Rationality and Campaigning: A Content Analysis of the 1960 Presidential Campaign Debates.” Western Political Quarterly18 (4): 794–802. 10.1177/106591296501800405
    https://doi.org/10.1177/106591296501800405 [Google Scholar]
  17. Garssen, Bart
    2017 “The Role of Pragmatic Problem-Solving Argumentation in Plenary Debate in the European Parliament.” InPrototypical Argumentative Patterns. Exploring the Relationship between Argumentative Discourse and Institutional Context, ed. byFrans H. van Eemeren, 31–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.11.03gar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.11.03gar [Google Scholar]
  18. Habermas, Jürgen
    1994 “Actions, Speech Acts, Linguistically Mediated Interactions and the Lifeworld.” InPhilosophical Problems Today, ed. byGuttorm Fløistad, 45–74. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hart, Roderick P., and Sharon E. Jarvis
    1997 “Political Debate: Forms, Styles, and Media.” American Behavioral Scientist40 (8): 1095–1122. 10.1177/0002764297040008010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764297040008010 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ihnen Jory, Constanza
    2012Pragmatic Argumentation in Law-Making Debates. Instruments for the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament. Amsterdam: SicSat.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Lamoureux, Elizabeth R., Heather S. Entrekin, and Mitchell S. McKinney
    1994 “Debating the Debates.” InThe 1992 Presidential Debates in Focus, ed. byDiana B. Carlin and Mitchell S. McKinney, 55–67. Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Lanoue, David J., and Peter Richard Schrott
    1991The Joint Press Conference. The History, Impact, and Prospects of American Presidential Debates. Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Mouffe, Chantal
    2013Agonistics: Thinking the World Politically. Verso Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Neagu, Maria-Ionela
    2015 “Political Debates: Deliberation, Persuasion, and Ethos Construction.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. byRăzvan Săftoiu, Maria-Ionela Neagu, and Stanca Măda, 85–100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://benjamins.com/catalog/ds.26.05nea. 10.1075/ds.26.05nea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.05nea [Google Scholar]
  25. Rowland, Robert C.
    1986 “The Substance of the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate.” Southern Speech Communication Journal51 (2): 142–165. 10.1080/10417948609372653
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10417948609372653 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2013 “The First 2012 Presidential Campaign Debate: The Decline of Reason in Presidential Debates.” Communication Studies64 (5): 528–547. 10.1080/10510974.2013.833530
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.833530 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018 “Implicit Standards of Public Argument in Presidential Debates: What the 2016 Debates Reveal about Public Deliberation.” Argumentation and Advocacy54 (1–2): 76–94. 10.1080/00028533.2018.1446830
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1446830 [Google Scholar]
  28. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  29. Wagemans, Jean H. M.
    2023 “How to Identify an Argument Type? On the Hermeneutics of Persuasive Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics2031: 117–129. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.015 [Google Scholar]
  30. Weiler, Michael
    1989 “The 1988 Electoral Debates and Debate Theory.” The Journal of the American Forensic Association25 (4): 214–219. 10.1080/00028533.1989.11951401
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1989.11951401 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00098.rei
Loading
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