219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201608250436 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
31010328 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code AIC 4 Eb 15 9789027274823 06 10.1075/aic.4 13 2011050948 DG 002 02 01 AIC 02 1877-6884 Argumentation in Context 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring Argumentative Contexts</TitleText> 01 aic.4 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/aic.4 1 B01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren University of Amsterdam 2 B01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen University of Amsterdam 01 eng 418 xx 398 LAN015000 v.2006 CFA 2 24 JB Subject Scheme COMM.CGEN Communication Studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 24 JB Subject Scheme PHIL.GEN Philosophy 06 01 In <i>Exploring Argumentative Contexts</i> Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen bring together a broad variety of essays examining argumentation as it occurs in seven communicative domains: the political context, the historical context, the legal context, the academic context, the medical context, the media context, and the financial context. These essays are written by an international group of argumentation scholars, consisting of Corina Andone, Sarah Bigi, Robert T. Craig, Justin Eckstein, Frans H. van Eemeren, Norman Fairclough, Eveline Feteris, Gerd Fritz, Bart Garssen, Kara Gilbert, Thomas Gloning, G. Thomas Goodnight, Dale A. Herbeck, Darrin Hicks, Thomas Hollihan, Jos Hornikx, Isabela Ie&#355;cu-Fairclough, Gábor Kutrovátz, Maurizio Manzin, Davide Mazzi, Dima Mohammed, Rudi Palmieri, Angela G. Ray, Patricia Riley, Robert C. Rowland, Peter Schulz, Karen Tracy, and Gergana Zlatkova. 05 <i>Exploring Argumentative Contexts</i> constitutes an evident proof of the growing attention of argumentation scholars to the context where arguments are applied. Eddo Rigotti, Università della Svizzera italiana, in Journal of Argumentation in Context Vol. 3:2 (2014), pp. 199-218 05 I would highly recommend it to students or researchers interested in argumentation research in different fields. Haipeng Hu, Ningbo Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University, in Discourse Studies Vol.16:5 (2014), pp. 699-701 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/aic.4.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027211217.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027211217.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/aic.4.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/aic.4.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/aic.4.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/aic.4.hb.png 10 01 JB code aic.4.001loc ix xii 4 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">List of contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.002int xiii xx 8 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Introduction</TitleText> 1 A01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren 2 A01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Political context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.01and 1 22 22 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 1. The reasonableness of confrontational strategic maneuvering in political interviews</TitleText> 1 A01 Corina Andone Andone, Corina Corina Andone 01 The goal of this paper is to evaluate a politician&#8217;s responses to an interviewer&#8217;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&#8217;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. 10 01 JB code aic.4.02fai 23 42 20 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 2. Values as premises in practical arguments</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Conceptions of justice in the public debate over bankers&#8217; bonuses</Subtitle> 1 A01 Isabela Fairclough Fairclough, Isabela Isabela Fairclough 2 A01 Norman Fairclough Fairclough, Norman Norman Fairclough 01 The paper focuses on a fragment of the public debate (in the UK) on whether or not the inequality of high pay and bonuses for bankers should be tolerated or not in the wake of the financial crisis. Our discussion builds on the view of the structure of practical arguments we advance in our forthcoming book (Fairclough &#38; Fairclough forthcoming), i.e. practical arguments take goal, value, circumstantial and means-goal premises. Drawing on Searle&#8217;s (2010) view of the construction of social reality, we advance the view that values enter practical arguments in two ways: as actual <i>concerns</i> (what people actually value, or &#8216;desire-dependent&#8217; reasons) and as objective, socially recognized, institutional <i>facts</i> (&#8216;desire-independent&#8217; reasons). The former type of reason constitutes the value premise which underlies the goal premise. The latter is part of the circumstantial premise: it is a fact that can motivate action but does not always do so: agents may choose to disregard commitments (values) that they are otherwise bound by. The typical argument in favour of &#8216;tolerating inequality&#8217; is a prudential argument based on people&#8217;s alleged actual interests and concerns: inequality allegedly serves the common good. The moral argument against inequality starts from a normative <i>concern</i> for justice but also from the state&#8217;s commitment to justice as an <i>institutional</i> <i>fact</i>. The UK government, for example, is publicly committed to justice and has a duty to act justly, whether it is actually concerned to act justly or not. 10 01 JB code aic.4.03van 43 58 16 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 3. Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament</Subtitle> 1 A01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren 2 A01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen 01 The room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse depends not only on the dialectical and rhetorical preconditions inherent in strategic maneuvering but also on various kinds of extrinsic preconditions imposed on strategic maneuvering by the institutional macro-context of the communicative activity type in which the maneuvering takes place. Van Eemeren and Garssen use the communicative activity type of plenary debate in the European Parliament as their case in point for illustrating the problems involved. 10 01 JB code aic.4.04ril 59 78 20 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 4. Strategic communication</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">How governments frame arguments in the media</Subtitle> 1 A01 Patricia Riley Riley, Patricia Patricia Riley 2 A01 Thomas A. Hollihan Hollihan, Thomas A. Thomas A. Hollihan 01 The rapidly changing global media environment has dramatically altered the flow of news and information and increased the complexity of foreign policy. National governments must now communicate simultaneously to domestic and international publics who have access to many of the same media sources. There is an emerging awareness that in this environment the media has become an instrument of policy and not merely a means to communicate policy and the result is an increased emphasis on the principles of strategic communication. This study examines the argument strategies of media diplomacy and analyzes media maneuvers following U.S. Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s visit to Israel in March, 2010. A foreign policy controversy developed when the Israeli government announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units on land claimed by the Palestinians, despite U.S. opposition. The announcement and its provocative timing resulted in a complex system of diplomatic arguments and media maneuvers as both sides sought to communicate their strategic objectives to diverse audiences with multiple, conflicting goals. 10 01 JB code aic.4.05cra 79 94 16 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 5. Arguments about &#8216;rhetoric&#8217; in the 2008 US presidential election campaign</TitleText> 1 A01 Robert T. Craig Craig, Robert T. Robert T. Craig 01 Barack Obama&#8217;s prowess in the art of rhetoric, for which he had gained a national reputation with a stirring keynote speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, was much commented upon during the 2008 US presidential election campaign and became a stimulus for public debate on the necessity, value, and danger of rhetoric as a political-communicative practice. Extending work by Craig (1996, 1999, 2008; Craig &#38; Tracy 2005) on normative concepts and arguments in ordinary metadiscourse (practically-oriented discourse about discourse), this paper presents an initial survey of arguments about rhetoric that appeared in public metadiscourse of the 2008 campaign. Issues that emerged in this debate engaged classic lines of argument between rhetorical and critical traditions of thought concerning the legitimacy of rhetoric, thus showing the continuing relevance of those traditions and their capacity to illuminate essential tensions in democratic public discourse. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec2 Section header 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Historical context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.06ray 95 114 20 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 6. Making history by analogy</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Frederick Douglass remembers William the Silent</Subtitle> 1 A01 Angela G. Ray Ray, Angela G. Angela G. Ray 01 Most scholarship on historical analogies emphasizes the dangers of misperception of current events through facile comparisons with the past. Instead, through a detailed rhetorical and historical analysis, this essay argues that an extended historical analogy that highlights difference as well as likeness has the potential to generate new and productive understandings of recent experience. The essay examines the public lecture &#8220;William the Silent,&#8221; written and delivered by African American civil rights advocate Frederick Douglass in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War. This lecture analogizes the history of the Netherlands in the sixteenth century to recent U.S. history, suggesting explanations for political decisions and military strategies. Douglass&#8217;s careful comparison and contrast of William of Orange and Abraham Lincoln are key elements of the analogy. Through the analysis presented here, this neglected popular lecture emerges as a significant part of Douglass&#8217;s own rhetorical trajectory as he sought to make sense of the recent war and the turbulent peace, as he made history by analogy. The dynamics of this case call attention to the importance of contextualizing analogies by form and function, in order to enrich our understanding of specific analogical uses and to deepen our comprehension of the power of analogy generally. 10 01 JB code aic.4.07maz 115 134 20 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 7. Analogy in history</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A corpus-based study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Davide Mazzi Mazzi, Davide Davide Mazzi 01 Over the last few decades, there has been a remarkable spate of interest for history. Thus, this academic discipline has been tackled for the captivating copresence of narrative and argumentative components in professional historians&#8217; scientific prose. Additionally, a few attempts have been made to classify the most widely spread forms of argument. However, in spite of the inspiring nature of available studies, only tangentially have scholars examined the inherently textual dimension of historical argumentation. The aim of this paper is thus to bring insights into the linguistic construction of argumentation in historical text, by choosing argument by analogy as a case in point. The study is based on a corpus of authentic research articles taken from specialised journals. By combining quantitative with qualitative methods, findings show that the reiterated expression of analogy serves as a clue to understand some crucial features of the organisation of historical text, e.g. the formulation of the writer&#8217;s own evaluation and the overall fleshing out of the meta-discursive substance characterising the interactive plane of historical text. The thesis argued here is that analogy is a chiefly interactive device, which combines with a set of discursive tools securing a fruitful relationship between writers and readers in the development of historical narrative and argument. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec3 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Legal context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.08man 135 148 14 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 8. A rhetorical approach to legal reasoning</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The Italian experience of CERMEG</Subtitle> 1 A01 Maurizio Manzin Manzin, Maurizio Maurizio Manzin 01 My article provides a short summary of the main tendencies in legal argumentation in Italy and a brief introduction to the rhetorical perspective adopted by CERMEG. The years after the end of the WW 2 saw the advent in Italy of a legal-theoretical account developed by N. Bobbio exclusively focusing on the normative nature of law and on a &#8216;syllogistic&#8217; paradigm of legal reasoning. Nevertheless, Bobbio himself, when editing Perelman&#8217;s studies on argumentation during the 1960s, implicitly revealed a certain difficulty in the relationship between the (normative) <i>authority</i> and the (logical) <i>rationality</i> of a judgment. In the s.c. &#8216;post-positivistic&#8217; period, among Bobbio&#8217;s scholars, there have arisen some quite various approaches to legal reasoning. In constant debate with these ones, but from different starting points, a research center on legal methodology (basically inspired by the thinking of F. Cavalla and strictly tied to the legal practice) has taken place in the University of Trento. It proposes an argumentative model based on classical rhetoric. This theory emphasises the metaphysical foundations of the rational operations performed at trial and derives from those some important consequences in the field of legal ethics and practice. 10 01 JB code aic.4.09fet 149 164 16 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 9. Strategic manoeuvring in the case of the &#8216;Unworthy spouse&#8217;</TitleText> 1 A01 Eveline T. Feteris Feteris, Eveline T. Eveline T. Feteris 01 In this contribution I give an analysis of strategic manoeuvring in a legal context. I give an analysis of the argumentation in the justification of the decision by the Dutch Supreme Court in the famous case of the &#8216;Unworthy Spouse&#8217; and I describe how the Supreme Court operates strategically within the space it has within the rules for the discussion in cassation to steer the outcome of the discussion in a particular direction. In my analysis of the discussion strategy I use the concept of strategic manoeuvring developed by van Eemeren (2010) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2006, 2007). Starting from this conception I show that the discussion strategy of the Supreme Court can be described as a consistent effort in the different stages of a critical discussion to steer the discussion in the desired direction within the boundaries of the rules for the discussion in cassation. 10 01 JB code aic.4.10tra 165 178 14 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 10. Everyday argument strategies in Appellate Court argument about same-sex marriage</TitleText> 1 A01 Karen Tracy Tracy, Karen Karen Tracy 01 Arguments that occur in the legal sphere are often held up as exemplars of good argument conduct, distinctively different from how most ordinary argument proceeds. In this chapter I analyze oral arguments in two cases of the California Supreme Court (<i>In Re Marriage</i>, <i>Strauss v. Horton</i>) as the court considered the legality of its laws regarding same-sex marriage. In both cases, the focal issue concerned whether denying same-sex couples the name &#8220;marriage&#8221; for their unions constituted a violation of the California law. The first case declared that it did; the second case, following a change to the state constitution defining marriage as one man-one woman, said it did not. After describing three argument strategies that are pervasive in everyday discourse &#8211; defining key terms to advantage one&#8217;s position, using a vivid analogy to drive home the (un)reasonableness of an action, and using lexical choices that cue a stance on a contentious issues &#8211; I illustrate that in the technical sphere of appellate argument these everyday strategies were commonly used. The chapter concludes by considering the significance of this interpenetration of everyday argument practices and technical legal argument. 10 01 JB code aic.4.11her 179 194 16 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 11. Student speech in public schools</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A case study in definitional argument</Subtitle> 1 A01 Dale A. Herbeck Herbeck, Dale A. Dale A. Herbeck 01 In <i>Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</i> (1969), the United States Supreme Court famously held that public school students do not &#8220;shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.&#8221; Recognizing that these rights are necessarily limited, the Court added that school officials retained the authority to punish expression that &#8220;would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.&#8221; In that decades that followed, judges applying <i>Tinker</i> have used the case to dramatically limit student speech rights. This result was achieved through two distinct argumentative moves. These decisions subtly broadened a legal standard that originally required <i>actual</i> disruption to include student speech that had the <i>potential</i> to disrupt. At the same time, these decisions delegated the authority to characterize expression to school officials. Using this power to define, it was easy for administrators to repress student speech by asserting that the possibility for disruption was sufficient to satisfy the &#8220;material&#8221; and &#8220;substantial&#8221; criteria set out in <i>Tinker</i>. Taken together, these simple definitional moves allowed judges to transform a landmark decision originally intended to protect student speech rights into a powerful precedent that can be offered to restrict student speech. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec4 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part IV. Academic context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.12kut 195 212 18 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 12. Expert authority and ad verecundiam arguments</TitleText> 1 A01 Gábor Kutrovátz Kutrovátz, Gábor Gábor Kutrovátz 01 Discussions of <i>ad verecundiam</i> arguments have always engaged with an essential tension between two kinds of possible approaches. On the one hand, <i>ad verecundiams</i> are typically classed under the heading of &#8216;fallacies&#8217; as potentially abusive and non-rational argument forms, especially in the field of &#8216;informal logic&#8217; (Copi, Walton). Similarly, the pragma-dialecticians focus on &#8216;fallacious&#8217; uses by treating fallacies as violations of the rules of rational discussion. On the other hand, frequent appeals to authority are part and parcel of human cognitive enterprises ranging from lay knowledge to highly specialized scientific research, as recognised by fileds such as social epistemology (Coady, Goldman), the history of science (the problem of testimony &#8211; Kusch, Shapiro), or recent trends in the social studies of science and technology (&#8216;studies of expertise and experience&#8217;, Collins, Evans). Recently Walton approaches these appeals in the framework of argument schemes. The paper tries, in the context of recent trends both in the public understanding of science and in the study of argumentation, to contrast these approaches with each other, and with empirical considerations concerning appeals to authority based on Internet blog discussions of the H1N1 case. 10 01 JB code aic.4.13fri 213 232 20 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 13. Critique and controversy in digital scientific communication</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">New formats and their affordances</Subtitle> 1 A01 Gerd Fritz Fritz, Gerd Gerd Fritz 2 A01 Thomas Gloning Gloning, Thomas Thomas Gloning 01 In the last few years various formats of digital communication on the internet have created new opportunities for scientific critique and controversy. Based on detailed case studies conducted within the framework of a major project, the present article discusses the possible impact of such formats on the practice of scientific controversy. In addition to providing a space for factual scientific information, formats like mailing lists, blogs, and open peer review journals are used as platforms for critical reviews and polemical exchanges. These new media have the potential to change three important aspects of scientific communication, the spread of scientific information, the speed of publication, and the amount of interactivity between scholars. For example, some forms of open peer review not only organize an accelerated and publicly visible reviewing process, but also encourage authors to reply to criticism and permit a wider scientific public to join in the critical discussion. So this format potentially contributes to an increase in transparency and interactivity of the reviewing process, thereby offering opportunities for clarification and further development of ideas. In these new digital formats traditional rules and patterns of controversy are often retained, but there are also new communicative tasks which call for new or modified principles and strategies. The article aims to show characteristic structures, opportunities and problems of polemical interactions conducted in these formats. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec5 Section header 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part V. Medical context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.14goo 233 254 22 Article 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 14. Drug advertising and clinical practice</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Positing biopolitics in clinical communication</Subtitle> 1 A01 G. Thomas Goodnight Goodnight, G. Thomas G. Thomas Goodnight 2 A01 Kara Gilbert Gilbert, Kara Kara Gilbert 01 The field of medical practice is influenced by biopolitics, an expanding domain of global controversies over health and medicine. The growth of direct-to-consumer advertising raises questions of influence upon doctor-patient communication. The study makes the case for critical inquiry to advance competent, clinical communicative practices. 10 01 JB code aic.4.15moh 255 268 14 Article 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 15. Argumentative insights for the analysis of direct-to-consumer advertising</TitleText> 1 A01 Dima Mohammed Mohammed, Dima Dima Mohammed 2 A01 Peter J. Schulz Schulz, Peter J. Peter J. Schulz 01 In spite of the increasing awareness of the central role that argumentation plays in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, argumentative considerations have not yet been adequately incorporated into the analysis of DTC ads. In this paper, we argue that taking argumentative considerations into account when designing codebooks for the content analysis of DTC ads is necessary in order for the analysis of DTC advertising to be insightful. We critically examine the codebooks used in influential studies in which the method of content analyses is applied to DTC ads in order to highlight the shortcomings of the existing codebooks. For example, because existing coding schemes do not incorporate argumentative insight into the coding schemes applied to DTC ads, these schemes can only identify the recurrence of particular messages but not identify the argumentative role these messages play in the text. We propose an alternative coding scheme that can capture argumentative features of DTC ads which are not captured in the existing coding schemes. 10 01 JB code aic.4.16row 269 288 20 Article 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 16. The battle for health care reform and the liberal public sphere</TitleText> 1 A01 Robert C. Rowland Rowland, Robert C. Robert C. Rowland 01 The battle over health care reform in 2009 and 2010 was the most important domestic policy debate in decades and therefore provides a good case to test the performance of the public sphere in the United States. The most appropriate means of carrying out that test is with liberal public sphere theory based in foundational conceptions of liberal democracy, especially the writings of James Madison. Under this theory, four key actors &#8211; the public, representatives of the public, the media, and the expert community &#8211; each must carry out key responsibilities. In the essay, the course of the debate is described and the performance of each actor assessed. While there were flaws in the performance of each of the key actors, the media and the expert community largely carried out their responsibilities. While much of the debate was inauthentic, the representatives of the public eventually enacted a reform effort. The performance of the public was more troubling with sizable percentage either uninformed or misinformed about the legislation. Overall, the liberal public sphere worked, but only by the barest of margins. 10 01 JB code aic.4.17big 289 304 16 Article 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 17. Contextual constraints on argumentation</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The case of the medical encounter</Subtitle> 1 A01 Sarah Bigi Bigi, Sarah Sarah Bigi 01 The paper presents partial results from an ongoing research on communication in the medical setting.<sup>1</sup> The aim of the paper is to show how the institutional context can affect argumentation by focusing on the activity type of medical consultations. In order to achieve this goal, the paper is structured in four sections. The first one offers a description of the institutional dimension of the medical consultation set within the cultural domain of the Italian National Health Service. In the second section, this description is completed by outlining also the interpersonal dimension of the context. The third section presents partial results obtained through the analysis of a collection of medical consultations. The analysis was conducted by selecting the argumentative extracts from the consultations and by describing the argument schemes used both by doctors and patients. The analysis shows that the persuasive strength of argument schemes varies depending on the way they are used in the different institutional contexts. In particular, the specific features of the institutional contexts constrain the effectiveness of the argument scheme by &#8216;commanding&#8217; context-specific premises, or endoxa. Therefore, those who have a better knowledge of the context will be able to use the various argument schemes more successfully because they will be able to refer to the most &#8216;context-relevant&#8217; premises. A development of the research should include more data in the analysis and also foresee the possibility for a comparison with data collected in different cultural contexts. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec6 Section header 25 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part VI. Media context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.18hor 305 320 16 Article 26 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 18. The effects of hedges and pledges in advertisements for high and low reputation brands</TitleText> 1 A01 Jos Hornikx Hornikx, Jos Jos Hornikx 01 Claims in advertising may vary in their use of probability markers that signal the degree to which the claim is true. Experimental research has compared hedges (which mark a claim as moderately probable) and pledges (which mark a claim as very probable). This research has generally neglected the proponent of the claims: the brand. There are reasons to believe that the brand behind the advertising affects to what extent people are persuaded by advertising claims. In two studies it was therefore investigated whether the reputation of the brand affects the persuasiveness of hedges and pledges. It was expected that hedges would be more persuasive for low-reputation brands, whereas pledges would be more persuasive for high-reputation brands. This expectation was tested in two experiments. In Study 1, hedges and pledges were compared in an ad that was provided after information about a brand&#8217;s reputation. In Study 2, hedges, plegdes and no markers were compared in an ad in which the brand&#8217;s reputation was incorporated. Both studies did not find empirical support for the hypothesis. In Study 1, hedges and pledges were found to be equally persuasive; in Study 2, pledges were found to be more persuasive than hedges. 10 01 JB code aic.4.19hic 321 340 20 Article 27 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 19. Higher-order strategic maneuvering by shifting standards of reasonableness in cold-war editorial argumentation</TitleText> 1 A01 Darrin Hicks Hicks, Darrin Darrin Hicks 2 A01 Justin Eckstein Eckstein, Justin Justin Eckstein 01 A content analysis of the New York Times editorial page shows that political reasonableness can be defined in several, sometimes competing, ways. These meanings can be summarized as prudence, soundness, equity and social cooperation. At the heart of many of the extended political controversies the Times editorial page has commented on disputes over which of these definitions of political reasonableness should prevail. One of these controversies concerned Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev&#8217;s 1959 proposal for complete nuclear disarmament; a proposal that presented several argumentative dilemmas for US President Dwight Eisenhower&#8217;s administration. The public debate over Khrushchev&#8217;s proposal occurred largely on the editorial page of the New York Times. The Times offered its own assessments of the proposal and served as a platform for publicizing the Eisenhower&#8217;s administrations&#8217; concerns and counterarguments. A rhetorical analysis of these editorials reveals how the meaning of political reasonableness itself became the object of strategic maneuvering in the Cold War. In particular, the higher-order conditions of argumentation, namely the ethical and political commitments underwriting reasonableness, served as the locus of strategic maneuvering in the editorial argumentation of the New York Times. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec7 Section header 28 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part VII. Financial context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.20pal 341 376 36 Article 29 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 20. The diversifying of contextual constraints and argumentative strategies in friendly and hostile takeover bids</TitleText> 1 A01 Rudi Palmieri Palmieri, Rudi Rudi Palmieri 01 This paper investigates how the argumentative situation affects arguers&#8217; strategic maneuvering in a financial context, devoting particular attention to the situational characteristics at the confrontational level. To this purpose, this study considers takeover bids, a class of financial activities in which one company (the bidder), in order to acquire the control of another company (the target), proposes to the shareholders of it to sell their shares. When seen from an argumentative perspective, takeover bids manifest an interesting and original aspect: beside a composite audience (corresponding to the shareholders and other stakeholders of the two corporations), a multiple arguer is always involved since the bidder and the target boards of directors are both requested to argumentatively justify their respective position. The important distinction made in financial economics between bids supported by the target board (friendly) and those that are opposed (hostile) is reinterpreted from the perspective of argumentation analysis. Hence, friendly and hostile bids are specified as two kindred activity types belonging to the class of takeover bids, i.e. two species of the same genus, differing mostly because they imply two different confrontational situations which evidently condition the strategies of the concerned arguers. In friendly offers, the bidder and target boards devise a coordinated argumentation in which each side moves within the boundaries set by the interaction field, i.e. the commitments implied by their institutional role and those imposed by takeover rules. Hostile offers show a higher complexity as bidder and target directors separately try to persuade the same audience of the acceptability of their respective standpoints, while reacting to the argumentation advanced by the other side. 10 01 JB code aic.4.21zla 377 392 16 Article 30 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 21. Reported argumentation in economic-financial news</TitleText> 1 A01 Gergana Zlatkova Zlatkova, Gergana Gergana Zlatkova 01 The present article deals with the argumentative function of reported speech in a specific discourse genre: economic-financial newspaper articles. Economic-financial discourse results are very interesting for the present investigation, at least, for two reasons. Firstly, being oriented towards the decision making of investors it is, for the most part, overtly or covertly argumentative. Secondly, the argumentation is, for the most part, attributed to expert sources. Theoretically, the research is based on the pragmatic and text linguistic research on reported discourse as well as on argumentation theory. The proposed integrated approach to reported speech combining linguistic and argumentation theoretic insights revealed the relations between linguistic characteristics of reported speech with its different argumentative functions. 10 01 JB code aic.4.22nam 393 396 4 Article 31 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.23sub 397 398 2 Article 32 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20120328 2012 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027211217 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 00 99.00 EUR R 01 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 gen 00 149.00 USD S 810010327 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code AIC 4 Hb 15 9789027211217 13 2011050948 BB 01 AIC 02 1877-6884 Argumentation in Context 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Exploring Argumentative Contexts</TitleText> 01 aic.4 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/aic.4 1 B01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren University of Amsterdam 2 B01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen University of Amsterdam 01 eng 418 xx 398 LAN015000 v.2006 CFA 2 24 JB Subject Scheme COMM.CGEN Communication Studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.DISC Discourse studies 24 JB Subject Scheme LIN.PRAG Pragmatics 24 JB Subject Scheme PHIL.GEN Philosophy 06 01 In <i>Exploring Argumentative Contexts</i> Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen bring together a broad variety of essays examining argumentation as it occurs in seven communicative domains: the political context, the historical context, the legal context, the academic context, the medical context, the media context, and the financial context. These essays are written by an international group of argumentation scholars, consisting of Corina Andone, Sarah Bigi, Robert T. Craig, Justin Eckstein, Frans H. van Eemeren, Norman Fairclough, Eveline Feteris, Gerd Fritz, Bart Garssen, Kara Gilbert, Thomas Gloning, G. Thomas Goodnight, Dale A. Herbeck, Darrin Hicks, Thomas Hollihan, Jos Hornikx, Isabela Ie&#355;cu-Fairclough, Gábor Kutrovátz, Maurizio Manzin, Davide Mazzi, Dima Mohammed, Rudi Palmieri, Angela G. Ray, Patricia Riley, Robert C. Rowland, Peter Schulz, Karen Tracy, and Gergana Zlatkova. 05 <i>Exploring Argumentative Contexts</i> constitutes an evident proof of the growing attention of argumentation scholars to the context where arguments are applied. Eddo Rigotti, Università della Svizzera italiana, in Journal of Argumentation in Context Vol. 3:2 (2014), pp. 199-218 05 I would highly recommend it to students or researchers interested in argumentation research in different fields. Haipeng Hu, Ningbo Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University, in Discourse Studies Vol.16:5 (2014), pp. 699-701 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/aic.4.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027211217.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027211217.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/aic.4.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/aic.4.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/aic.4.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/aic.4.hb.png 10 01 JB code aic.4.001loc ix xii 4 Article 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">List of contributors</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.002int xiii xx 8 Article 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Introduction</TitleText> 1 A01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren 2 A01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec1 Section header 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part I. Political context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.01and 1 22 22 Article 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 1. The reasonableness of confrontational strategic maneuvering in political interviews</TitleText> 1 A01 Corina Andone Andone, Corina Corina Andone 01 The goal of this paper is to evaluate a politician&#8217;s responses to an interviewer&#8217;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&#8217;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. 10 01 JB code aic.4.02fai 23 42 20 Article 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 2. Values as premises in practical arguments</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Conceptions of justice in the public debate over bankers&#8217; bonuses</Subtitle> 1 A01 Isabela Fairclough Fairclough, Isabela Isabela Fairclough 2 A01 Norman Fairclough Fairclough, Norman Norman Fairclough 01 The paper focuses on a fragment of the public debate (in the UK) on whether or not the inequality of high pay and bonuses for bankers should be tolerated or not in the wake of the financial crisis. Our discussion builds on the view of the structure of practical arguments we advance in our forthcoming book (Fairclough &#38; Fairclough forthcoming), i.e. practical arguments take goal, value, circumstantial and means-goal premises. Drawing on Searle&#8217;s (2010) view of the construction of social reality, we advance the view that values enter practical arguments in two ways: as actual <i>concerns</i> (what people actually value, or &#8216;desire-dependent&#8217; reasons) and as objective, socially recognized, institutional <i>facts</i> (&#8216;desire-independent&#8217; reasons). The former type of reason constitutes the value premise which underlies the goal premise. The latter is part of the circumstantial premise: it is a fact that can motivate action but does not always do so: agents may choose to disregard commitments (values) that they are otherwise bound by. The typical argument in favour of &#8216;tolerating inequality&#8217; is a prudential argument based on people&#8217;s alleged actual interests and concerns: inequality allegedly serves the common good. The moral argument against inequality starts from a normative <i>concern</i> for justice but also from the state&#8217;s commitment to justice as an <i>institutional</i> <i>fact</i>. The UK government, for example, is publicly committed to justice and has a duty to act justly, whether it is actually concerned to act justly or not. 10 01 JB code aic.4.03van 43 58 16 Article 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 3. Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament</Subtitle> 1 A01 Frans H. van Eemeren Eemeren, Frans H. van Frans H. van Eemeren 2 A01 Bart Garssen Garssen, Bart Bart Garssen 01 The room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse depends not only on the dialectical and rhetorical preconditions inherent in strategic maneuvering but also on various kinds of extrinsic preconditions imposed on strategic maneuvering by the institutional macro-context of the communicative activity type in which the maneuvering takes place. Van Eemeren and Garssen use the communicative activity type of plenary debate in the European Parliament as their case in point for illustrating the problems involved. 10 01 JB code aic.4.04ril 59 78 20 Article 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 4. Strategic communication</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">How governments frame arguments in the media</Subtitle> 1 A01 Patricia Riley Riley, Patricia Patricia Riley 2 A01 Thomas A. Hollihan Hollihan, Thomas A. Thomas A. Hollihan 01 The rapidly changing global media environment has dramatically altered the flow of news and information and increased the complexity of foreign policy. National governments must now communicate simultaneously to domestic and international publics who have access to many of the same media sources. There is an emerging awareness that in this environment the media has become an instrument of policy and not merely a means to communicate policy and the result is an increased emphasis on the principles of strategic communication. This study examines the argument strategies of media diplomacy and analyzes media maneuvers following U.S. Vice President Joe Biden&#8217;s visit to Israel in March, 2010. A foreign policy controversy developed when the Israeli government announced the construction of 1,600 new housing units on land claimed by the Palestinians, despite U.S. opposition. The announcement and its provocative timing resulted in a complex system of diplomatic arguments and media maneuvers as both sides sought to communicate their strategic objectives to diverse audiences with multiple, conflicting goals. 10 01 JB code aic.4.05cra 79 94 16 Article 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 5. Arguments about &#8216;rhetoric&#8217; in the 2008 US presidential election campaign</TitleText> 1 A01 Robert T. Craig Craig, Robert T. Robert T. Craig 01 Barack Obama&#8217;s prowess in the art of rhetoric, for which he had gained a national reputation with a stirring keynote speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, was much commented upon during the 2008 US presidential election campaign and became a stimulus for public debate on the necessity, value, and danger of rhetoric as a political-communicative practice. Extending work by Craig (1996, 1999, 2008; Craig &#38; Tracy 2005) on normative concepts and arguments in ordinary metadiscourse (practically-oriented discourse about discourse), this paper presents an initial survey of arguments about rhetoric that appeared in public metadiscourse of the 2008 campaign. Issues that emerged in this debate engaged classic lines of argument between rhetorical and critical traditions of thought concerning the legitimacy of rhetoric, thus showing the continuing relevance of those traditions and their capacity to illuminate essential tensions in democratic public discourse. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec2 Section header 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part II. Historical context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.06ray 95 114 20 Article 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 6. Making history by analogy</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Frederick Douglass remembers William the Silent</Subtitle> 1 A01 Angela G. Ray Ray, Angela G. Angela G. Ray 01 Most scholarship on historical analogies emphasizes the dangers of misperception of current events through facile comparisons with the past. Instead, through a detailed rhetorical and historical analysis, this essay argues that an extended historical analogy that highlights difference as well as likeness has the potential to generate new and productive understandings of recent experience. The essay examines the public lecture &#8220;William the Silent,&#8221; written and delivered by African American civil rights advocate Frederick Douglass in the aftermath of the U.S. Civil War. This lecture analogizes the history of the Netherlands in the sixteenth century to recent U.S. history, suggesting explanations for political decisions and military strategies. Douglass&#8217;s careful comparison and contrast of William of Orange and Abraham Lincoln are key elements of the analogy. Through the analysis presented here, this neglected popular lecture emerges as a significant part of Douglass&#8217;s own rhetorical trajectory as he sought to make sense of the recent war and the turbulent peace, as he made history by analogy. The dynamics of this case call attention to the importance of contextualizing analogies by form and function, in order to enrich our understanding of specific analogical uses and to deepen our comprehension of the power of analogy generally. 10 01 JB code aic.4.07maz 115 134 20 Article 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 7. Analogy in history</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A corpus-based study</Subtitle> 1 A01 Davide Mazzi Mazzi, Davide Davide Mazzi 01 Over the last few decades, there has been a remarkable spate of interest for history. Thus, this academic discipline has been tackled for the captivating copresence of narrative and argumentative components in professional historians&#8217; scientific prose. Additionally, a few attempts have been made to classify the most widely spread forms of argument. However, in spite of the inspiring nature of available studies, only tangentially have scholars examined the inherently textual dimension of historical argumentation. The aim of this paper is thus to bring insights into the linguistic construction of argumentation in historical text, by choosing argument by analogy as a case in point. The study is based on a corpus of authentic research articles taken from specialised journals. By combining quantitative with qualitative methods, findings show that the reiterated expression of analogy serves as a clue to understand some crucial features of the organisation of historical text, e.g. the formulation of the writer&#8217;s own evaluation and the overall fleshing out of the meta-discursive substance characterising the interactive plane of historical text. The thesis argued here is that analogy is a chiefly interactive device, which combines with a set of discursive tools securing a fruitful relationship between writers and readers in the development of historical narrative and argument. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec3 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part III. Legal context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.08man 135 148 14 Article 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 8. A rhetorical approach to legal reasoning</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The Italian experience of CERMEG</Subtitle> 1 A01 Maurizio Manzin Manzin, Maurizio Maurizio Manzin 01 My article provides a short summary of the main tendencies in legal argumentation in Italy and a brief introduction to the rhetorical perspective adopted by CERMEG. The years after the end of the WW 2 saw the advent in Italy of a legal-theoretical account developed by N. Bobbio exclusively focusing on the normative nature of law and on a &#8216;syllogistic&#8217; paradigm of legal reasoning. Nevertheless, Bobbio himself, when editing Perelman&#8217;s studies on argumentation during the 1960s, implicitly revealed a certain difficulty in the relationship between the (normative) <i>authority</i> and the (logical) <i>rationality</i> of a judgment. In the s.c. &#8216;post-positivistic&#8217; period, among Bobbio&#8217;s scholars, there have arisen some quite various approaches to legal reasoning. In constant debate with these ones, but from different starting points, a research center on legal methodology (basically inspired by the thinking of F. Cavalla and strictly tied to the legal practice) has taken place in the University of Trento. It proposes an argumentative model based on classical rhetoric. This theory emphasises the metaphysical foundations of the rational operations performed at trial and derives from those some important consequences in the field of legal ethics and practice. 10 01 JB code aic.4.09fet 149 164 16 Article 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 9. Strategic manoeuvring in the case of the &#8216;Unworthy spouse&#8217;</TitleText> 1 A01 Eveline T. Feteris Feteris, Eveline T. Eveline T. Feteris 01 In this contribution I give an analysis of strategic manoeuvring in a legal context. I give an analysis of the argumentation in the justification of the decision by the Dutch Supreme Court in the famous case of the &#8216;Unworthy Spouse&#8217; and I describe how the Supreme Court operates strategically within the space it has within the rules for the discussion in cassation to steer the outcome of the discussion in a particular direction. In my analysis of the discussion strategy I use the concept of strategic manoeuvring developed by van Eemeren (2010) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2006, 2007). Starting from this conception I show that the discussion strategy of the Supreme Court can be described as a consistent effort in the different stages of a critical discussion to steer the discussion in the desired direction within the boundaries of the rules for the discussion in cassation. 10 01 JB code aic.4.10tra 165 178 14 Article 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 10. Everyday argument strategies in Appellate Court argument about same-sex marriage</TitleText> 1 A01 Karen Tracy Tracy, Karen Karen Tracy 01 Arguments that occur in the legal sphere are often held up as exemplars of good argument conduct, distinctively different from how most ordinary argument proceeds. In this chapter I analyze oral arguments in two cases of the California Supreme Court (<i>In Re Marriage</i>, <i>Strauss v. Horton</i>) as the court considered the legality of its laws regarding same-sex marriage. In both cases, the focal issue concerned whether denying same-sex couples the name &#8220;marriage&#8221; for their unions constituted a violation of the California law. The first case declared that it did; the second case, following a change to the state constitution defining marriage as one man-one woman, said it did not. After describing three argument strategies that are pervasive in everyday discourse &#8211; defining key terms to advantage one&#8217;s position, using a vivid analogy to drive home the (un)reasonableness of an action, and using lexical choices that cue a stance on a contentious issues &#8211; I illustrate that in the technical sphere of appellate argument these everyday strategies were commonly used. The chapter concludes by considering the significance of this interpenetration of everyday argument practices and technical legal argument. 10 01 JB code aic.4.11her 179 194 16 Article 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 11. Student speech in public schools</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A case study in definitional argument</Subtitle> 1 A01 Dale A. Herbeck Herbeck, Dale A. Dale A. Herbeck 01 In <i>Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</i> (1969), the United States Supreme Court famously held that public school students do not &#8220;shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gates.&#8221; Recognizing that these rights are necessarily limited, the Court added that school officials retained the authority to punish expression that &#8220;would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.&#8221; In that decades that followed, judges applying <i>Tinker</i> have used the case to dramatically limit student speech rights. This result was achieved through two distinct argumentative moves. These decisions subtly broadened a legal standard that originally required <i>actual</i> disruption to include student speech that had the <i>potential</i> to disrupt. At the same time, these decisions delegated the authority to characterize expression to school officials. Using this power to define, it was easy for administrators to repress student speech by asserting that the possibility for disruption was sufficient to satisfy the &#8220;material&#8221; and &#8220;substantial&#8221; criteria set out in <i>Tinker</i>. Taken together, these simple definitional moves allowed judges to transform a landmark decision originally intended to protect student speech rights into a powerful precedent that can be offered to restrict student speech. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec4 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part IV. Academic context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.12kut 195 212 18 Article 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 12. Expert authority and ad verecundiam arguments</TitleText> 1 A01 Gábor Kutrovátz Kutrovátz, Gábor Gábor Kutrovátz 01 Discussions of <i>ad verecundiam</i> arguments have always engaged with an essential tension between two kinds of possible approaches. On the one hand, <i>ad verecundiams</i> are typically classed under the heading of &#8216;fallacies&#8217; as potentially abusive and non-rational argument forms, especially in the field of &#8216;informal logic&#8217; (Copi, Walton). Similarly, the pragma-dialecticians focus on &#8216;fallacious&#8217; uses by treating fallacies as violations of the rules of rational discussion. On the other hand, frequent appeals to authority are part and parcel of human cognitive enterprises ranging from lay knowledge to highly specialized scientific research, as recognised by fileds such as social epistemology (Coady, Goldman), the history of science (the problem of testimony &#8211; Kusch, Shapiro), or recent trends in the social studies of science and technology (&#8216;studies of expertise and experience&#8217;, Collins, Evans). Recently Walton approaches these appeals in the framework of argument schemes. The paper tries, in the context of recent trends both in the public understanding of science and in the study of argumentation, to contrast these approaches with each other, and with empirical considerations concerning appeals to authority based on Internet blog discussions of the H1N1 case. 10 01 JB code aic.4.13fri 213 232 20 Article 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 13. Critique and controversy in digital scientific communication</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">New formats and their affordances</Subtitle> 1 A01 Gerd Fritz Fritz, Gerd Gerd Fritz 2 A01 Thomas Gloning Gloning, Thomas Thomas Gloning 01 In the last few years various formats of digital communication on the internet have created new opportunities for scientific critique and controversy. Based on detailed case studies conducted within the framework of a major project, the present article discusses the possible impact of such formats on the practice of scientific controversy. In addition to providing a space for factual scientific information, formats like mailing lists, blogs, and open peer review journals are used as platforms for critical reviews and polemical exchanges. These new media have the potential to change three important aspects of scientific communication, the spread of scientific information, the speed of publication, and the amount of interactivity between scholars. For example, some forms of open peer review not only organize an accelerated and publicly visible reviewing process, but also encourage authors to reply to criticism and permit a wider scientific public to join in the critical discussion. So this format potentially contributes to an increase in transparency and interactivity of the reviewing process, thereby offering opportunities for clarification and further development of ideas. In these new digital formats traditional rules and patterns of controversy are often retained, but there are also new communicative tasks which call for new or modified principles and strategies. The article aims to show characteristic structures, opportunities and problems of polemical interactions conducted in these formats. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec5 Section header 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part V. Medical context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.14goo 233 254 22 Article 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 14. Drug advertising and clinical practice</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Positing biopolitics in clinical communication</Subtitle> 1 A01 G. Thomas Goodnight Goodnight, G. Thomas G. Thomas Goodnight 2 A01 Kara Gilbert Gilbert, Kara Kara Gilbert 01 The field of medical practice is influenced by biopolitics, an expanding domain of global controversies over health and medicine. The growth of direct-to-consumer advertising raises questions of influence upon doctor-patient communication. The study makes the case for critical inquiry to advance competent, clinical communicative practices. 10 01 JB code aic.4.15moh 255 268 14 Article 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 15. Argumentative insights for the analysis of direct-to-consumer advertising</TitleText> 1 A01 Dima Mohammed Mohammed, Dima Dima Mohammed 2 A01 Peter J. Schulz Schulz, Peter J. Peter J. Schulz 01 In spite of the increasing awareness of the central role that argumentation plays in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, argumentative considerations have not yet been adequately incorporated into the analysis of DTC ads. In this paper, we argue that taking argumentative considerations into account when designing codebooks for the content analysis of DTC ads is necessary in order for the analysis of DTC advertising to be insightful. We critically examine the codebooks used in influential studies in which the method of content analyses is applied to DTC ads in order to highlight the shortcomings of the existing codebooks. For example, because existing coding schemes do not incorporate argumentative insight into the coding schemes applied to DTC ads, these schemes can only identify the recurrence of particular messages but not identify the argumentative role these messages play in the text. We propose an alternative coding scheme that can capture argumentative features of DTC ads which are not captured in the existing coding schemes. 10 01 JB code aic.4.16row 269 288 20 Article 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 16. The battle for health care reform and the liberal public sphere</TitleText> 1 A01 Robert C. Rowland Rowland, Robert C. Robert C. Rowland 01 The battle over health care reform in 2009 and 2010 was the most important domestic policy debate in decades and therefore provides a good case to test the performance of the public sphere in the United States. The most appropriate means of carrying out that test is with liberal public sphere theory based in foundational conceptions of liberal democracy, especially the writings of James Madison. Under this theory, four key actors &#8211; the public, representatives of the public, the media, and the expert community &#8211; each must carry out key responsibilities. In the essay, the course of the debate is described and the performance of each actor assessed. While there were flaws in the performance of each of the key actors, the media and the expert community largely carried out their responsibilities. While much of the debate was inauthentic, the representatives of the public eventually enacted a reform effort. The performance of the public was more troubling with sizable percentage either uninformed or misinformed about the legislation. Overall, the liberal public sphere worked, but only by the barest of margins. 10 01 JB code aic.4.17big 289 304 16 Article 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 17. Contextual constraints on argumentation</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">The case of the medical encounter</Subtitle> 1 A01 Sarah Bigi Bigi, Sarah Sarah Bigi 01 The paper presents partial results from an ongoing research on communication in the medical setting.<sup>1</sup> The aim of the paper is to show how the institutional context can affect argumentation by focusing on the activity type of medical consultations. In order to achieve this goal, the paper is structured in four sections. The first one offers a description of the institutional dimension of the medical consultation set within the cultural domain of the Italian National Health Service. In the second section, this description is completed by outlining also the interpersonal dimension of the context. The third section presents partial results obtained through the analysis of a collection of medical consultations. The analysis was conducted by selecting the argumentative extracts from the consultations and by describing the argument schemes used both by doctors and patients. The analysis shows that the persuasive strength of argument schemes varies depending on the way they are used in the different institutional contexts. In particular, the specific features of the institutional contexts constrain the effectiveness of the argument scheme by &#8216;commanding&#8217; context-specific premises, or endoxa. Therefore, those who have a better knowledge of the context will be able to use the various argument schemes more successfully because they will be able to refer to the most &#8216;context-relevant&#8217; premises. A development of the research should include more data in the analysis and also foresee the possibility for a comparison with data collected in different cultural contexts. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec6 Section header 25 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part VI. Media context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.18hor 305 320 16 Article 26 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 18. The effects of hedges and pledges in advertisements for high and low reputation brands</TitleText> 1 A01 Jos Hornikx Hornikx, Jos Jos Hornikx 01 Claims in advertising may vary in their use of probability markers that signal the degree to which the claim is true. Experimental research has compared hedges (which mark a claim as moderately probable) and pledges (which mark a claim as very probable). This research has generally neglected the proponent of the claims: the brand. There are reasons to believe that the brand behind the advertising affects to what extent people are persuaded by advertising claims. In two studies it was therefore investigated whether the reputation of the brand affects the persuasiveness of hedges and pledges. It was expected that hedges would be more persuasive for low-reputation brands, whereas pledges would be more persuasive for high-reputation brands. This expectation was tested in two experiments. In Study 1, hedges and pledges were compared in an ad that was provided after information about a brand&#8217;s reputation. In Study 2, hedges, plegdes and no markers were compared in an ad in which the brand&#8217;s reputation was incorporated. Both studies did not find empirical support for the hypothesis. In Study 1, hedges and pledges were found to be equally persuasive; in Study 2, pledges were found to be more persuasive than hedges. 10 01 JB code aic.4.19hic 321 340 20 Article 27 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 19. Higher-order strategic maneuvering by shifting standards of reasonableness in cold-war editorial argumentation</TitleText> 1 A01 Darrin Hicks Hicks, Darrin Darrin Hicks 2 A01 Justin Eckstein Eckstein, Justin Justin Eckstein 01 A content analysis of the New York Times editorial page shows that political reasonableness can be defined in several, sometimes competing, ways. These meanings can be summarized as prudence, soundness, equity and social cooperation. At the heart of many of the extended political controversies the Times editorial page has commented on disputes over which of these definitions of political reasonableness should prevail. One of these controversies concerned Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev&#8217;s 1959 proposal for complete nuclear disarmament; a proposal that presented several argumentative dilemmas for US President Dwight Eisenhower&#8217;s administration. The public debate over Khrushchev&#8217;s proposal occurred largely on the editorial page of the New York Times. The Times offered its own assessments of the proposal and served as a platform for publicizing the Eisenhower&#8217;s administrations&#8217; concerns and counterarguments. A rhetorical analysis of these editorials reveals how the meaning of political reasonableness itself became the object of strategic maneuvering in the Cold War. In particular, the higher-order conditions of argumentation, namely the ethical and political commitments underwriting reasonableness, served as the locus of strategic maneuvering in the editorial argumentation of the New York Times. 10 01 JB code aic.4.00sec7 Section header 28 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Part VII. Financial context</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.20pal 341 376 36 Article 29 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 20. The diversifying of contextual constraints and argumentative strategies in friendly and hostile takeover bids</TitleText> 1 A01 Rudi Palmieri Palmieri, Rudi Rudi Palmieri 01 This paper investigates how the argumentative situation affects arguers&#8217; strategic maneuvering in a financial context, devoting particular attention to the situational characteristics at the confrontational level. To this purpose, this study considers takeover bids, a class of financial activities in which one company (the bidder), in order to acquire the control of another company (the target), proposes to the shareholders of it to sell their shares. When seen from an argumentative perspective, takeover bids manifest an interesting and original aspect: beside a composite audience (corresponding to the shareholders and other stakeholders of the two corporations), a multiple arguer is always involved since the bidder and the target boards of directors are both requested to argumentatively justify their respective position. The important distinction made in financial economics between bids supported by the target board (friendly) and those that are opposed (hostile) is reinterpreted from the perspective of argumentation analysis. Hence, friendly and hostile bids are specified as two kindred activity types belonging to the class of takeover bids, i.e. two species of the same genus, differing mostly because they imply two different confrontational situations which evidently condition the strategies of the concerned arguers. In friendly offers, the bidder and target boards devise a coordinated argumentation in which each side moves within the boundaries set by the interaction field, i.e. the commitments implied by their institutional role and those imposed by takeover rules. Hostile offers show a higher complexity as bidder and target directors separately try to persuade the same audience of the acceptability of their respective standpoints, while reacting to the argumentation advanced by the other side. 10 01 JB code aic.4.21zla 377 392 16 Article 30 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Chapter 21. Reported argumentation in economic-financial news</TitleText> 1 A01 Gergana Zlatkova Zlatkova, Gergana Gergana Zlatkova 01 The present article deals with the argumentative function of reported speech in a specific discourse genre: economic-financial newspaper articles. Economic-financial discourse results are very interesting for the present investigation, at least, for two reasons. Firstly, being oriented towards the decision making of investors it is, for the most part, overtly or covertly argumentative. Secondly, the argumentation is, for the most part, attributed to expert sources. Theoretically, the research is based on the pragmatic and text linguistic research on reported discourse as well as on argumentation theory. The proposed integrated approach to reported speech combining linguistic and argumentation theoretic insights revealed the relations between linguistic characteristics of reported speech with its different argumentative functions. 10 01 JB code aic.4.22nam 393 396 4 Article 31 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code aic.4.23sub 397 398 2 Article 32 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20120328 2012 John Benjamins 02 WORLD 01 245 mm 02 164 mm 08 885 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 82 14 01 02 JB 1 00 99.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 104.94 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 14 02 02 JB 1 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 14 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 149.00 USD