Cover not available
Part of
Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 46–70

Chapter 2
Establishing starting points in Editorials

An analysis of the Brexit debate in the UK

| University of Roma Tre
If argumentation has to have a chance of success in solving a difference of opinion, there must be a common ground between the participants, i.e. one or more objects of agreement between the parties, which can be exploited argumentatively. This chapter focuses on how starting points are established in editorials and comments, taking as a case study a corpus of UK newspaper articles on populism in the context of the 2016 referendum on Brexit.
The results suggest that starting points are discursively constructed either with a bona-fide intent of signalling that the receiver should accept a proposition as a starting point, or the non-bona fide purpose of mocking those who would subscribe to a given proposition. In either case, the ratified addressee typically belongs to the writer’s ‘party’, thus confirming editorials as a genre with a strong epideictic component.
Keywords: editorials, agreement, starting points, Brexit, populism
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical frame
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Questions as indicators of a proposal to accept a proposition as a starting point
      • 4.1.1Rhetorical questions with ‘then’
      • 4.1.2Rhetorical questions with tag questions
    • 4.2Expressions suggesting that a starting point has been accepted
    • 4.4Accepting starting points with restrictions
  • 5.Starting points and the intended audience in editorials
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.02deg
References (24)
References
Adler, J. E. (1996). Charity, interpretation, fallacy. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 29(4), 329–343.Google Scholar
Bigi S., & Greco Morasso S. (2012). Keywords, Frames and the Reconstruction of Material Starting Points in Argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1135–1149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–310). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calogero, G. (1951). Logo e dialogo; saggio sullo spirito critico e sulla libertà di coscienza. Comunità.Google Scholar
Degano, C. (2007). Presupposition and Dissociation in Discourse: A Corpus Study. Argumentation, 21, 361–378. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Populism and the Press: Contracting and Expanding (Dis)agreement Space in UK Editorials on Brexit. In Garzone, G. /Logaldo, M. / Santulli, F. (Eds.) Investigating Conflict Discourse in the Periodical Press (pp. 33–50). Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Degano, C., & Sicurella, F. (2019). A dialogue on populism? A study of intellectual discourse about populism in the Brexit debate in Italy and the UK. In J. Zienkowski, & R. Breeze (Eds.), Imagining the peoples of Europe: Populist discourses across the political spectrum (pp. 43–71). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doury, M. (2012). Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees? Argumentation, 26, 99–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gellis, M. (1999). Sermons of corporate identity: argument in two corporate annual reports. OSSA Conference Archive 18. [URL]Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1987). A new approach to charity. In Problems in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 133–158). Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Levinson S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2012). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Indiana: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Sala, M. (2012). Differently Amusing. Mechanisms, Types and Modes of Humour. ECIG – Edizioni Culturali Internazionali Genova.Google Scholar
Sinclair J., (1988). Mirror for a text. The Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 1, 15–44.Google Scholar
Stevens, K. (2021) Charity for moral reasons? – A defense of the principle of charity in argumentation, Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(2), 67–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic manoeuvring: a synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar