Journal of Argumentation in Context - Volume 8, Issue 3, 2019

Abstract

This paper analyzes an important genre in the public debates before popular votes in Switzerland: the TV addresses in which the Swiss government presents its standpoint and main arguments for or against the proposal put to the vote. The paper investigates a series of addresses in order to characterize the argumentation in them. The question is whether the addresses show similarities and, if there are any, what their pragmatic effects on the argumentation might be. The addresses are studied with concepts and methods from linguistics and argumentation theory: with regard to the role of the non-verbal modes, the composition, the relation between argumentation and other practices, the argumentative macro- and micro-structure, and personal references. In all these aspects, recurrent features can be identified. Many of these features can be understood as highly functional for the Swiss political system with its far-reaching direct democratic rights. They effectuate an argumentation that is rather informative than confrontational.

Abstract

The computer metaphor of the brain is frequently criticized by scientists and philosophers outside the computational paradigm. Proponents of the metaphor may then seek to defend its explanatory merits, in which case the metaphor functions as a standpoint. Insofar as previous research in argumentation theory has treated metaphors either as presentational devices or arguments by analogy, this points to hitherto unexplored aspects of how metaphors may function in argumentative discourse. We start from the assumption that the computer metaphor of the brain constitutes an explanatory hypothesis and set out to reconstruct it as a standpoint defended by a complex argumentation structure: abduction supported by analogy. We then provide three examples of real arguments conforming to our theoretically motivated construction. We conclude that our study obtains proof-of-concept but that more research is needed in order to further clarify the relationship between our theoretical construct and the complexities of empirical reality.

Abstract

In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.

Abstract

We analyze the visual, verbal, and material arguments present at the European Green Belt (EGB), a contemporary conservation project built from the former Iron Curtain. The EGB presents itself as a “living memorial” that fuses together former warring countries and thus makes an argument for the unity of Europe. To analyze this incredibly diverse and rhetorically significant project, we put the digital representations of the site and the discourse around the EGB into conversation with situated, rhetorical criticism performed along the EGB site itself. We analyze the EGB’s different argumentative juxtapositions regarding history and memory, nonhuman nature and technology, peace and war, memorial and tourism, and preservation and restoration. Overall, we find that the transformation of the Iron Curtain from divisive border into a European-wide, transboundary biodiversity conservation project uses transcendence as a key argumentative structure, which has implications for how we understand the human relationship with the environment, history, and memory

This article reviews The maneuvering Paul: A pragma-dialectical analysis of Paul’s argumentation in First Corinthians 4:18–7:40

This article reviews Interpersonal argumentation in educational and professional contexts