Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 12, Issue 2, 2023

Abstract

This study examines the relations between oral and written argumentation in two contexts: written assignments and structured interviews among Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish students in Israeli higher education. The segregated education system for Haredi students focuses on dyadic oral discussions about religious texts. When Haredi men start their way in academia, they move from an oral to a written culture. To understand this complex process, I compared forty argumentative essays and structured interviews of Ultra-Orthodox students. I identified which argumentative patterns recurred or differed across the two contexts. The comparison elicited complex findings: whereas dialectic patterns of weighing supporting and opposing arguments and counterarguments were prominent in both contexts, sweeping generalizations and firm arguments were found mainly in the essays. The similarity of the argumentative patterns in writing and in the interviews may be explained by the stability of argument schemata across different contexts. The findings expand on previous theoretical and empirical findings and demonstrate how the dialectic process of examining different perspectives leads to complex positions. Finally, I present educational implications for teaching argumentation, such as careful activity design and choosing discussion topics that elicit weighing and sophisticated arguments.

Abstract

The institute of legality for traders, including business contracts, business correspondence, and legal proceedings concerning economic cases, appeared in Mesopotamia first since the early dynastic period (ca. 2900–2350 B.C.). This institute became well organized for the period of the third dynasty of Ur (from the 22nd to the 21st century B.C.). This tradition was continued in the Babylonian as well as other Mesopotamian dynasties. As a consequence, Akkadian speaking traders preferred logical tools in their business correspondences, too. Therefore, the business contracts and business correspondence satisfied the main argumentative stages of legal proceedings. In late antiquity since the 2nd century A.D. Greek, Bactrian, and Sogdian were one of the most important languages for traders of Silk Road with very high standards of argumentation as main tools of dispute resolutions taken from the Babylonians. In this paper, I analyze some general features of these standards.

Abstract

Commisa v Pemex is one of the rare cases where an arbitral award set aside at the seat of arbitration is enforced. The judges are forced to justify how the notion of public policy becomes a priority over international comity.

This paper explores, from a pragma-dialectic approach, what rhetorical strategies are employed to justify this decision. Legal Argumentation Theory (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; Feteris, 2005; van Eemeren, 2007; Feteris & Kloosterhuis, 2009) values a combination between rational knowledge and rhetoric; for which interpersonality could be highly involved. On the one hand, metaphor (Lakoff & Turner, 1989; Sopory & Dillard, 2002; Mussolf, 2017) supports the legal argumentation; while, on the other hand, hedges, intensifiers, attitudinal markers (Vande Kopple, 1985; Crismore, 1993; Hyland, 1999, 2000a; Dafouz, 2003) shape the message to convince the audience that, on this occasion, a previously annulled international arbitral award should be enforced.

This article reviews How philosophers argue: An adversarial collaboration on the Russell-Copleston debate

This article reviews Argumentative Style >