Chapter published in:
Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 229–257

Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type

| Hacettepe University, Ankara
Television debates are a tool of public deliberation through which ordinary citizens can get involved in deliberative democracy. They are argumentative events in which standpoints about a controversial issue are raised, defended, and criticized. By adopting the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2005; van Eemeren, 2010), this paper aims to characterize a multi-participant TV debate (MPTD) as an argumentative activity type. Argumentative characterization of an MPTD involves, first of all, providing a detailed description of the institutional constraints imposed on the argumentative practices in this activity type, and next, distinguishing in MPTD the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion. For illustration, the paper draws its examples from Siyaset Meydanı, an MPTD that had a long broadcasting history in Turkey. As a result of the characterization achieved in this paper, it is concluded that an MPTD is a moderately-conventionalized deliberative activity type preconditioned by both implicit and explicit norms governing the conduct of argumentation.
Published online: 02 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.11dem
References

References

Andone, C.
(2010) Maneuvering Strategically in a Political Interview: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to an Accusation of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Benoit, W. L., Henson, J. R., & Sudbrock, L. A.
(2011) A functional analysis of 2008 American presidential primary debates. Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy, 48, 97–110.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. R.
(2002) The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in internet discussions about public. Information Polity, 7, 3–20.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van
(2010) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.
(1982) The speech act of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S.
(1993) Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P.
(1997) Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves. In J. Klumpp (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp.51–56). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
(2002) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.). The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84).Google Scholar
Emmertsen, S.
(2007) Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 570–591. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fracchiolla, B.
(2011) Politeness as a strategy of attack in a gendered political debate – The Royal Sarkozy debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2480–2488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guillot, M. N. (2008) Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 179–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J.
(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, transl.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1992.)Google Scholar
Ilie, C.
(1999) Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (8), 975–999. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Semi-institutional discourse: The case of talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 209–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J.
(2012) Why debate moderators matter. National Journal, (Oct. 11, 2012). Retrieved from: http://​www​.nationaljournal​.com​.ezp​.lib​.rochester​.edu​/njonline/
Lewiński, M.
(2010) Internet Political Discussion Forums as an Argumentative Activity Type. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Luginbühl, M.
(2007) Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1371–1387. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2013) Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 39–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, K., & I-Wen Su, L.
(2011) The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (13), 3251–3266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
RTUK- The Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Media Services
. Retrieved from: http://​www​.rtuk​.org​.tr​/sayfalar​/IcerikGoster​.aspx​?icerikid​=464e2c3d​-dfb6​-4541​-9218​-21219c021aa2 on January 26 2012.
Thomas, R. J.
(2012) Considering the ethical obligations of presidential debate moderators. Media Ethics, 23(2).Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E.
(1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D.
(1998) The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar