Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 11, Issue 2, 2022

Abstract

This paper examines the discursive construction of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after she wore a veil following the unprecedented terror attack in two mosques in the city of Christchurch in 2019. The articles analyzed are collected from three main newspapers published in New Zealand’s three main cities. Analyzed using principles and tools from Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) more specifically, the articles reveal key arguments from both sides i.e. in support of and against this unparalleled initiative on behalf of a political leader in the western world. On the one hand, the majority of the news articles under analysis portray PM’s initiative as one that attempts to mitigate tension and conflict while bringing solidarity to a grief-stricken nation; and thus, are based on the ‘locus from ontological implications’. While the perspectives that oppose the initiative vary from explicit racist ones that present Muslims as threat to Zealand, to those who strongly believe such actions support the women oppression. Through a (de-)construction of the arguments opposing this move, the findings demonstrate that the opposition towards PM’s initiative is based on two main loci namely the ‘locus from correlates’ and the ‘locus from termination and setting up’

Abstract

Proverbs are often used in argumentation to convey an epistemic or deontic point of view. While their argumentative potential has not failed to gain the attention of linguists, much remains to be done in terms of analyzing their pragmatic function in single argumentative contexts and languages. With a view to this desideratum, and embracing a contrastive perspective, I pose the question of the argumentative role of proverbs in Italian and French journalistic discourse. In a pragma-dialectical framework, I take the rhetorical perspective to pertain to argumentation as much as the dialectical one and show the potential of proverbs in both spheres. However, I then focus mainly the former perspective, showing how paroemiological argumentation can help mitigate the difference of opinion especially in the case of dissent and facilitate argumentative effectiveness thanks to protagonist-centered and antagonist-oriented strategies involving linguistic polyphony and non-directness.

Abstract

Argumentation on some public policy issues is conjugated with disagreement and power differentials. Institutionally dominant arguers control the argumentation context through imposing authority rules which sometimes incentivize them to respond to opposing arguers in a fallacious way1 – with “the repeating tokens of the same counterarguments” and without considering the merits of opposing arguments. As produced in accordance with authority rules, such fallacies are embedded in the dominant argumentative discourse and easily pass unnoticed. To detect them, I introduce Argument Continuity (AC) – a new category of argumentative discourse analysis. AC is a set of the same arguments and counterarguments repeatedly produced/reproduced by the dominant arguer through an adversarial reasoning process to disconfirm opposing arguments and dismiss them. ACs are distinguished from other fallacies by their continuous nature and recursive way of production. ACs have their own life cycle – a chain of reasoning dynamics developing in a path-dependent fashion and increasing the cost of adopting a certain argument over time. I test the life cycle of ACs in a single case study – in consultations held by the Crown with Indigenous peoples of Canada over a controversial resource development project. Although ACs are not specific to the Crown-Indigenous relationships, they reveal how dominant arguers treat disagreement from epistemically diverse arguers. Based on observed evidence, I develop three theoretical propositions of ACs, which can serve as guidelines for researching the disconfirming mode of reasoning in other contexts of communication permeated by beliefs clash and power asymmetries.

Abstract

This paper is focused on the practice of private diary-writing as an act of externalizing internal communication from the point of view of the theory of argumentation. It is demonstrated that through diary-writing, various forms of internal negotiation can be implemented. The paper sheds light on three ways internal negotiation is externalized through diary writing: reflective diary writing, crisis diary writing and self-encouraging diary writing. It is shown that these communicative practices occur with respect to specific exigencies of a diarist, and with respect to these specific exigencies, they differ in the type of argumentation that can be submitted in the writings. For the argumentative characterization of these practices, the concept of the communicative activity type introduced within a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation is used. It is shown that distinguished diary-writing practices are differently conventionalized activity types that are preconditioned by implicit norms governing the conduct of argumentation.

This article reviews An Argumentative Analysis of the Emergence of Issues in Adult–Children Discussions