Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation
Sides, positions, and cases
Marcin Lewiński | ArgLab, Nova Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA-FCSH) | Universidade Nova de Lisboa
Dialectical approaches traditionally conceptualize argumentation as a discussion in which two parties debate on “two sides of an issue” (pro and con). However, many political issues engender multiple positions. This is clear in multi-party online deliberations in which often an array of competing positions is debated in one and the same discussion. A proponent of a given position thus addresses a number of possible opponents, who in turn may hold incompatible opinions. The goal of this chapter is to shed extra light on such “polylogical” clash of opinions in online deliberation, by examining the multi-layered participation in actual online debates. The examples are drawn from the readers’ discussions on Osama bin Laden’s killing in online versions of two British newspapers: The Guardian and The Telegraph. As a result of the analysis, a distinction between sides, positions, and cases in argumentative deliberation is proposed.
References
Aakhus, Mark, and Marcin Lewiński
Applebaum, Anne
2011 “
Bin Laden killed: For a day or two, we’ll feel like the United States of America again.” Available online:
[URL] (last consulted 12-03-2015).
Aristotle
1984 “
Rhetoric.” (William Rhys Roberts, trans.).” In
The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation, vol. 2, ed. by
Jonathan Barnes, 2152–2269. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Baym, Nancy K
1996 “
Agreements and disagreements in a computer mediated discussion.”
Research on Language and Social Interaction 29 (4): 315–345.
Blair, J. Anthony
1998 “
The limits of the dialogue model of argument.”
Argumentation 12 (3): 325–339.
Bohman, James
1996 Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bonevac, Daniel
2003 “
Pragma-dialectics and beyond.”
Argumentation 17 (4): 451–459.
Brashers, Dale E., and Renee A. Meyers
1989 “
Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation.” In
Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. by
Bruce E. Gronbeck, 542–550. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Bruxelles, Sylvie, and Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni
2004 “
Coalitions in polylogues.”
Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 75–113.
Canary, Daniel J., Brent G. Brossmann, and David R. Seibold
1987 “
Argument structures in decision-making groups.”
Southern Speech Communication Journal 53 (1): 18–37.
Clark, Herbert H., and Thomas B. Carlson
1982 “
Hearers and speech acts.”
Language 58 (2): 332–373.
Cohen, Joshua
2009 Philosophy, politics, democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dascal, Marcelo
2008 “
Dichotomies and types of debate.” In
Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren, and
Bart Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Davies, Todd, and Seeta P. Gangadharan
(eds) 2009 Online deliberation: Design, research and practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Davis, Richard
1999 The Web of politics: The Internet’s impact on the American political system. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davis, Richard
2005 Politics online: Blogs, chatrooms, and discussion groups in American democracy. London: Routledge.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
1984 Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs
1993 Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Goffman, Erving
1981 Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodwin, Charles, and Marjorie H. Goodwin
1990 “
Interstitial argument.” In
Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, ed. by
Allen D. Grimshaw, 85–117. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, Paul H
1975 “
Logic and conversation.” In
Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by
Peter Cole, and
Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
Habermas, Jürgen
1989 The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (
Thomas Burger, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hamblin, Charles L
1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hauben, Michael, and Ronda Hauben
1997 Netizens: On the history and impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA.: IEEE Computer Society.
Haviland, John B
1986 “
‘Con Buenos Chiles’: Talk, targets and teasing in Zincantán.”
Text 6 (3): 249–282.
Hill, Kevin A., and John E. Hughes
1998 Cyberpolitics: Citizen activism in the age of the Internet. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Hymes, Dell
1972 “
Models of the interaction of language and social life.” In
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication, ed. by
John. J. Gumperz, and
Dell Hymes, 35–71. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Jackson, Sally
1992 “
‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument.” In
Argumentation illuminated, ed. by
Frans H. van Eemeren,
Rob Grootendorst,
J. Anthony Blair, and
Charles A. Willard, 260–269. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs
1980 “
Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.”
The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 (3): 251–265.
Jacquette, Dale
2007 “
Two sides of any issue.”
Argumentation 21 (2): 115–127.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
2004 “
Introducing polylogue.”
Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 1–24.
Krabbe, Erik C.W
2006 “
Logic and games.” In
Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. by
Peter Houtlosser, and
M. Agnès van Rees, 185–198. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Levinson, Stephen C
1988 “
Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation.” In
Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. by
Paul Drew, and
Anthony J. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Lewiński, Marcin
2010a Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Lewiński, Marcin
2010b “
Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums.”
Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2): 86–105.
Lewiński, Marcin
2011 “
Monologue, dilogue or polylogue: Which model for public deliberation?” In
Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by
Frank Zenker, 1–15. CD ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Lewis, Diana M
2005 “
Arguing in English and French asynchronous online discussion.”
Journal of Pragmatics 37 (11): 1801–1818.
Marcoccia, Michel
2004 “
On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups.”
Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 115–145.
Maynard, Douglas W
1986 “
Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party disputes among children (and other humans).”
Human Studies 9: 261–285.
Mendelson, Michael
2002 Many sides: A protagorean approach to the theory, practice, and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Murray, Andrew
2011 “
Bin Laden’s death is a fork in the road.” Available online:
[URL] (last consulted 12-03-2015).
Rheingold, Howard
1993 The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA.: Addison Wesley.
Richardson, John E., and James Stanyer
2011 “
Reader opinion in the digital age: Tabloid and broadsheet newspaper websites and the exercise of political voice.”
Journalism 12 (8): 983–1003.
Searle, John R
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, John R
1975 “
A taxonomy of illocutionary acts.” In
Language, mind, and knowledge, vol. 7, ed. by
Keith Günderson, 344–369. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Searle, John R
1992 “
Conversation.” In
(On) Searle on conversation, ed. by
John R. Searle,
et al., 7–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sunstein, Cass R
2007 Republic.com 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Walton, Douglas N
1998 The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe
1995 Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Wenzel, Joseph W
1979 “
Jürgen Habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation.”
Journal of the American Forensic Association 16: 83–94.
Wilhelm, Anthony G
2000 Democracy in the digital age: Challenges to political life in cyberspace. New York: Routledge.
Wright, Scott
2012 “
Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation.”
New Media and Society 14 (2): 244–261.
Cited by
Cited by 1 other publications
Innocenti, Beth
2022.
Demanding a halt to metadiscussions.
Argumentation 36:3
► pp. 345 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 april 2024. 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.