Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentative Style
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:1] 2021
► pp. 121–143

The presentational dimension of Geert Wilders’s populist argumentative style

| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
| Leiden University Centre for Linguistics
This study responds to van Eemeren’s (2019, 2021) call for research on the prototypical argumentative styles used in particular domains or communicative activity types by particular individuals or groups. It explores the argumentative style of Dutch politician Geert Wilders in presenting populist arguments, i.e., arguments claiming that if many people hold a certain standpoint, this standpoint should be accepted. A corpus study of 27 texts taken from the website of Wilders’s political party reveals four characteristics of this presentation that deviate significantly from the general descriptions of this type of argument given in the textbooks: (1) absence of indicators, (2) implicit standpoint, (3) wide range of verbs to indicate what “the people” think or believe, (4) use of a construction indicating that the speaker is acting as a mouthpiece (“on behalf of the people, I say”).
Keywords: ad populum , appeal to the majority, context of deliberation, political discourse, populism, populist argument, stylistic device
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The populist argument
  • 3.Corpus and method
  • 4.Non-argumentative populist references and regular symptomatic argumentation
  • 5.Presentational characteristics of Wilders’s use of populist arguments
    • 5.1Leaving out argumentative indicators
    • 5.2Leaving standpoints implicit
    • 5.3Using atypical verbs to introduce standpoints
    • 5.4Using constructions without a verb in indicating the people’s opinion
  • 6.A combination of presentational characteristics
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 February 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20020.jan
References (49)
References
Andone, C. (2015). Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 151, 13 pp. Retrieved from: [URL]
(2016). Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation, 301, 45–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blassnig, S., Büchel, F., Ernst, N., & Engesser, S. (2018). Populism and informal fallacies: An analysis of right-wing populist rhetoric in election campaigns. Argumentation, 33(1), 107–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boogaart, R., Jansen, H., & van Leeuwen, M. (2021). The language of argumentation. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freeman, J. B. (1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In H. V. Hansen & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings (pp. 266–273). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Godden, D. (2008). On common knowledge and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2), 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herman, T. & Oswald, S. (2020). Everybody knows that there is something odd about ad populum arguments. In R. Boogaart, H. Jansen, & M. van Leeuwen (eds.), The language of argumentation. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Jagers, J., & Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties’ discourse in Belgium. European Journal of Political Research, 461, 319–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Ad populum arguments in a political context. In S. Oswald & D. Maillat (eds.), Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Volume II (pp. 423–436). London: College Publications.Google Scholar
(2019). De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie [The role of the standpoint in the assessment of ad populum argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 411, 143–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). “The people want it.” Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(3) 342–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jansen, H., & van Leeuwen, M. (2018). Presentational choice in ad populum argumentation. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. R. Mitchell, & J. H. M. Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 573–582). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2020). “Ik spreek namens miljoenen Nederlanders.” Wilders’ populistische argumentatie in het politieke debat. [On behalf of millions of Dutch people. Wilders’s populist arguments in political debate.] Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 42(2).Google Scholar
Jansen, H., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2020). Argumentative use and strategic function of the expression ‘not for nothing’. Argumentation, 341, 143–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical Self-Defense. New York, etc.: Idea Press.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (2003). Populistische Topik. Zu einigen rhetorischen Strategien Jörg Haiders. Rhetorik, 21(1), 119–140.Google Scholar
Moffitt, B. (2016). The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moffitt, B., & Tormey, S. (2014). Rethinking populism: Politics, mediatisation and political style. Political Studies, 621, 381–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C. R. (2017). Populism: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Müller, J.-W. (2016). What is populism. University Park: University of Pennsylvania Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nolt, J. E. (1984). Informal logic. Possible worlds and imagination. New York, etc.: McGraw-Hill Book Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, S., and Hart, C. (2013). Trust based on bias: Cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies. In D. Mohammed and M. Lewínski (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA, 13 pp.Google Scholar
Pauwels, T. (2014). Populism in Western Europe: Comparing Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, M. (2006). The dynamics of right-wing populist argumentation in Austria. In: F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.Google Scholar
Tonnard, Y. (2011). Getting an issue on the table: A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Argumentative style: A complex notion. Argumentation, 331, 153–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Examining argumentative style: A new theoretical perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10(1) (this issue).Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Conceptions of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
(2015). The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with threats. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, & F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1396–1407). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2019). En dan zit je met de gebakken peren! Strategisch manoeuvreren met het argumentum ad consequentiam [And then you’ll have to face the consequences! Strategic manoeuvring with the argumentum ad consequentiam]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 47–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.Google Scholar
(2015). Making the best of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness an effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 543–554). Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2016). Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation (2nd rev. ed.). New York/London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Argumentatie: Analyseren, beoordelen en houden van een betoog [Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, production] (6th rev. ed.). Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
van Haaften, T. (2011). Parliamentary debate and political culture: The Dutch case. In T. van Haaften, H. Jansen, J. de Jong & W. Koetsenruijter (eds.), Bending opinion: Essays on persuasion in the public domain (pp. 349–368). Leiden: Leiden University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Dutch parliamentary debate. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Wu (eds.), Contextualizing pragma-dialectics (pp. 177–192). Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Haaften, T., & van Leeuwen, M. (2020). Suggesting outsider status by behaving improperly: The linguistic realisation of a populist rhetorical strategy in Dutch Parliament. In I. van der Geest, B. van Klink, & H. Jansen (eds.), Vox populi: Populism as a rhetorical and democratic challenge (pp. 108–129). Edward Elgar. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, M. (2014). Systematic stylistic analysis. The use of a checklist. In B. Kaal, I. Maks & A. van Elfrinkhof (eds.), From Text to Political Positions. Text analysis across disciplines (pp. 225–244). Amsterdam, etc.: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Stijl en politiek. Een taalkundig-stilistische benadering van Nederlandse parlementaire toespraken [Style and politics: A linguistic-stylistic approach to Dutch parliamentary speeches]. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2016). ‘Man van het volk’. Stijl en imago van Geert Wilders [‘Man of the people’: Style and image of Geert Wilders]. Tekstblad 22(2), 6–11.Google Scholar
(2019). Measuring people-centrism in populist political discourse: A linguistic approach. In J. Zienkowski & R. Breeze (eds.), Imagining the peoples of Europe: Populist discourse across the political spectrum (pp. 315–339). Amsterdam, etc.: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, M., & van Vliet, F. (2019). De ‘stem van het volk’. Populisme en perspectief [The ‘voice of the people’. Populism and perspective]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 41(1), 173–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vossen, K. (2016). The Power of Populism. Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Jansen, Henrike
2020. “The people want it”. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:3 ► pp. 342 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 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.