Article published in:Exploring Argumentative Contexts
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 4] 2012
► pp. 1–22
Chapter 1. The reasonableness of confrontational strategic maneuvering in political interviews
The goal of this paper is to evaluate a politician’s responses to an interviewer’s accusation that his current standpoint is inconsistent with an earlier expressed standpoint on the same issue. The author focuses on the case in which the politician responds to such criticism by retracting the earlier expressed standpoint and subsequently reformulating it. Taking a pragma-dialectical perspective on argumentation, the author assesses whether the politician’s sequence of moves contributes to a reasonable resolution of the difference of opinion that is at stake in a political interview. To this end, the author formulates a set of soundness conditions that should be fulfilled if a politician is to reasonably retract a standpoint that is afterwards reformulated. The author applies the soundness conditions to a number of concrete cases taken from BBC political interviews to judge whether the responses are reasonable or not.
Published online: 28 March 2012
Cited by 4 other publications
Arcidiacono, Francesco & Antonio Bova
Ragni, Marco, Sangeet Khemlani & P. N. Johnson-Laird
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.