Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 14, Issue 1, 2025

Abstract

This article zeroes in on the distinctive features of a novel site of public argumentation. The UK drill music decision of the Oversight Board (OSB) of Meta will be analyzed given its salience as its most explicit decision regarding governmental requests. An introduction presents a theoretical framework. The second section describes the interdiscursively hybrid genre of the OSB. The third section recalls the case, highlighting its complex relation to several discourses and legalities. The fourth section analyzes the argumentation undertaken in the OSB’s decision, looking at its generic moves and structure, and its hallmarks: the separation of balancing and proportionality assessments, the incorporation of non-merits-based arguments, and the development of an interface doctrine (as a recurring argumentative framework in which norms and arguments from other institutional sites are assessed). A conclusion remarks the relevance for the public realm of analyzing hybrid genres and interlegal sites of argument.

Abstract

This paper explores a specialized application of visual argumentation within the domain of the natural sciences and points out a broader conceptual problem regarding the testability of visual arguments. We highlight the methodological problems of Leo Groarke’s Key-Component method that make it, in its current form, unreliable for use to test images’ argumentative role. The main reason is that visual content is ambiguous and underdetermined, especially in a scientific context. Focusing merely on visual features without the inclusion of verbal implicit premises poses a considerable challenge to reconstructing reliable premise — conclusion structures.

We posit the necessity of advancing a more sophisticated framework specifically designed to evaluate visual arguments systematically. We argue that images should be considered in a linked verbal — visual argument system in scientific arguments, in which images and other evidence complement each other and jointly support a conclusion because relying solely on visual evidence results in underdetermined inferences. The present paper exemplifies this issue through an illustrative case study focused on images of the Mars Phoenix lander. The goal of the present study is twofold: to scrutinize the findings of visual argumentation in order to extend its scope to the natural sciences, and to suggest methodological changes to the KC method to make it more reliable.

Abstract

Overall, a few studies have investigated argumentations in the research article discussion sections (RADs). More specifically, to date, no research has investigated the arrangement of standpoints and their supporting arguments in the RADs. In this study, we attempted to cast some light on the chronological variations of argument schemes and their possible interrelationships with argument soundness and strength. To this end, the argument schemes of 354 RADs from the journal of English for Specific Purposes (JESP) were analyzed using the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Also, the argument soundness/strength was analyzed using a literature-informed multi-faceted framework. Findings indicate that causal schemes have prevailed over the past three decades, compared to analogical and symptomatic schemes. Analogy scheme was the most common in the first decade, but faded away over time, while symptomatic scheme has never been salient. Concerning argument soundness/strength, five perspectives from the literature were integrated into this research. A tentative model consisting of three stratifications, i.e., logico-linguistic, pragma-linguistic, and logico-pragmatic, has been proposed to operationalize the abstruse concept of argument soundness/strength. Limited chronological disparities were identified and reported in this respect.

Abstract

In this paper, we describe and analyze how immigrants in Chile (N = 388, from Colombia, Perú and Venezuela), conceive having a disagreement and how they value the practice of giving reasons. For this purpose, we applied a survey that measures different argumentative tendencies. For the most part, we found all three immigrant groups to be comparable in how they thought and felt about arguing, but that age and gender were structural variables that made important differences in the way people conceived the practice of giving reasons.

This article reviews Persuasion in Specialized discourse. A multidisciplinary perspective