Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 13, Issue 1, 2024

Abstract

Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on the web, on a global level. The collective writing of articles, open to the participation of all, can give rise to major conflicts between contributors, in texts and debates, given the high stakes involved in achieving agreement on a public presentation of controversial topics. We present analyses of how disagreements are managed across socio-technical and dialogical spaces in French Wikipedia, with respect to two case studies, on Freud and the Turin Shroud. We adopt a mixed methods approach, combining results of analyses of interviews with moderators in these articles and argumentative discussions underlying them, within a broadly pragma-dialectical framework. We show, on one hand, that moderators’ attempts to resolve disagreements by requiring participants to cite sources simply displace conflicts to the nature of those sources, their validity, their authors and the good faith of their proponents. Debates concerning sources themselves draw on social actors’ perspectives in dialogical spaces, beyond the discussion itself. Disagreements are managed rather than resolved dialectically by displacing them to alternative socio-technical spaces, such as different sections of the text itself, or participants’ personal pages.

Abstract

In 2021, China’s entertainment industry experienced a series of unusual argumentative controversies followed by the creation of the Qing Lang movement initiated by the Chinese government that called for tackling irregularities in the industry. With strong support from the Chinese public, the Qing Lang movement presents an intriguing case to examine a new model of social argument representing both the public and state interest in resolving social problems in the Chinese version of the public sphere. The paper identifies key characteristics defining a reciprocal model of social activism in state-sponsored actions in China exemplified by the Qing Lang movement. The paper also argues for the value of a culture-specific approach to understanding public sphere and social activism and clarifies the function of argument in Chinese society.

Abstract

During the Covid-19 pandemic, various institutions held press conferences to inform the public about the situation. Journalists engaged in these events to obtain information and to scrutinize the appropriateness of authorities’ measures. Previous research has shown that journalists have become more adversarial towards politicians, but also that health crises make journalists more cooperative with authorities to help manage the situation. However, it remains unknown to what extent journalists retain their deliberative aim in press conferences where crises are addressed, and how their interventions as a whole shape discussions with authorities. A corpus of twenty-one press conferences held by seven institutions was annotated according to the argumentative moves of journalists. Results show that journalists displayed a wide array of argumentative moves, and the findings suggest that journalists incline towards retrieving information during crises, unless the situation gets intertwined with political turmoil.

Abstract

This paper proposes to investigate the public responses to situationally-triggered metaphors as these have been observed in political argumentation. Situationally-triggered metaphors occur when a nonmetaphorical connection is made between the metaphor and an aspect of the relevant situational context. The question addressed in this research is: how are such metaphors perceived by the public when these form part of the political argumentation? To answer this question, the study focuses on a particular instance of political situationally-triggered metaphor i.e., Boris Johnson’s “James Bond” metaphor produced during COP26. The paper draws on Critical Metaphor Analysis and Deliberate Metaphor Theory to analyse the public comments and reactions posted on the social media platform Twitter in response to the politician’s arguments. The analysis reveals that most of the public responses exploit the “James Bond” metaphor to dispute Johnson’s self-identification to the fictional character and provide meta-arguments that revolve around the politician’s misuse of metaphors. In contrast, responses that exploit the metaphor to convey political arguments or endorsement are much more limited. It is thus argued that situationally-triggered metaphors not only represent a political rhetorical device, but they are also effective political tools to shift public attention towards discursive patterns instead of arguments presented in discourse.

Abstract

Linguistic arguments are paramount in legal interpretation. They are widely used by judges and considered to be ubiquitous across jurisdictions. It is claimed that they are decisive and limitative in the judicial interpretation of the law. The claims have long been subject to theoretical scrutiny and, recently, testing within experimental jurisprudence. In this paper, we analyse the judicial reasoning in a landmark Italian case from the end of the nineteenth century concerning Lidia Poët, an aspiring practising female lawyer. The case was decided in the last instance by the Turin Court of Cassation. We give a detailed argumentative analysis of the reasoning of the Court of Cassation in Turin in the Lidia Poët case and show that the crucial linguistic and systematic arguments used are not grounds for the interpretative decision to exclude women from the denotation of the word “lawyer.” We conclude that the linguistic arguments employed by courts often do not do the argumentative work they are expected to do. Instead, they cover the substantial views that have determined the ascription of normative meaning to a term or sentence.

This article reviews The Rhetorical Rise and Demise of “Democracy”