Journal of Argumentation in Context - Current Issue

Both conversation analysis (CA) and extended pragma-dialectics (PD) share an interest in empirical, data-driven analysis of argumentative exchanges, a focus on sequential organization, and context-sensitivity. While cross-fertilization between CA and argumentation analysis in general took place, no full parallel analysis with CA and PD, let alone with extended PD was carried out. In this paper by CA and PD researchers, we compare how each approach interprets the same Dutch medical consultation and assess systematically how both approaches differ and complement each other. We will focus on disagreement management and doctor-patient decision-making. Our findings suggest that, despite the tensions, the combination of these approaches offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactional dynamics of argumentation, shedding light on, e.g., the enactment of institutional roles, the normative consequences of turn-management, and varied facets of strategic maneuvering.

Accusations are common social actions found in couples conflict episodes. Drawing from video-recorded couples therapy sessions, we examine a corpus of couples accusation-response sequences in order to answer the following questions: How are offences (e.g., accusations/blame/reproach) formulated in couples therapy talk, how does the accused spouse resist or deny the offensive action and how does the therapist intervene in the offence-response sequences? Two methods are used to investigate these interactional practices. Conversation analysis (CA) is used to identify the sequential organization of these offence-response sequences and, in particular, the defensive moves used by the male spouse to resist the offensive action. Argumentation analysis (AA) from the perspective of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) is used to reconstruct and evaluate argumentative sequences of accusation and responses (e.g., counter-reproach, justification, and acceptance of responsibility) particularly focusing on argumentation schemes. By integrating these approaches, we were able to reveal a couple’s argumentative practices from both an interactional and content dimension.

This study integrates the polylogue framework of argumentation (Lewiński and Aakhus 2023) with discourse analysis to show how a polylogical argumentative activity is discursively co-constructed in a multiparty discussion on the issues Argentine tango dancers face, with the specific focus on the matter of inclusivity/exclusivity. It contributes to developing the polylogue framework by investigating the complexity of argumentation at a micro level by exploring the interdependence of its three aspects (i.e., players, positions, and places) in one interaction. In terms of place, the way the host frames the activity orients towards the intricacies of the discussed issue as a goal rather than the resolution of difference of opinion, which is taken up by the participants. The study also demonstrates the interrelation of the participants’ identities and their positions and the position dynamics within single participants. Furthermore, it shows how the difference among the participants’ views, even though they share a position, and the construction of alliances during the interaction adds to the multifacetedness of argumentative activity.

In election debates, it is essential for politicians to try to steer the discussion to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of their opponent. One strategy to do so is exploiting the polyphony inherent in discourse, employing quotes, paraphrases and references to prior speech. In this study, we analyze an interaction from a Dutch election debate from 2021 to answer the question: ‘how is the voice of the opponent included in the debate discourse by politicians to steer the interaction to their own advantage?’ By recontextualizing an opponent’s words, the discussion can be managed by representing the other’s argumentation. Therefore, we speak about ‘constructed argumentation’ in debates, as the words of the other party are recontextualized to appear within a particular discussion to put pressure on the opponent to argue, force particular discussion points, and frame the other’s position. This practice is part of the interactional fabric of election debates.