Article published in:
Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict
Vol. 6:1 (2018) ► pp. 58–78

False reasoning and argumentation in the Twitter discourse of the Prime Minister of Israel

| Panteion University, Greece
This paper explores the Twitter discourse of the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, regarding security issues and the threat of ‘Islamist terrorism’ as manifested in the latest election campaign (March 2015) and his tweets and statements on Operation Protective Edge (July – August 2014). By focusing on national security and the underlying threat of terrorism against Israel and the West on Twitter, I argue that Netanyahu disseminates his political agenda further and attempts to communicate political decisions on the Gaza conflict in a digital environment.By synthesizing Aristotle’s dialectic and rhetoric and the Discourse Historical Approach (DHA) to Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), and drawing on the concepts of topos and fallacy, I attempt to understand and explain how the Gaza conflict is communicated on social media by the Israeli Prime Minister. My aim is also to shed light on the validity of social media in political discourse and to examine whether and how social media can play a role in the propagation of political discourse in times of crisis through an argumentative discourse analysis of the tweets posted by the Prime Minister of Israel.
Keywords: Discourse Historical Approach, Aristotle, argumentation, topos , fallacy, Twitter discourse
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Towards an argumentative discourse analysis in a digital environment: Synthesizing the DHA and Aristotle’s thought
    • 2.1Discourse Historical Approach and digital communication
    • 2.2The concept of topos: From Aristotle to the DHA
    • 2.3False reasoning: The concept of fallacy
    • 2.4Research corpus: A Discourse Historical Approach to Twitter
  • 3.‘Operation Protective Edge’
  • 4.National elections
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Funding
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 02 July 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00003.bou
References

References

Amossy, Ruth
2009 “The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance: Argumentation and Discourse Analysis.” Argumentation 231: 313–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 “How to do things with doxa: Toward an analysis of argumentation in discourse”. Poetics Today 23(3): 465–487. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis
2008 “Potentials and Limitations of Discourse-Centred Online Ethnography”. Language @ Internet 5(9).Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah
2004 The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken Books.Google Scholar
Aristotle
1992 Tοπικά [Topics]. Athens: Kaktos.Google Scholar
1994 Περί των Σοφιστικών Ελέγχων [Sophistical Refutations]. Athens: Kaktos.Google Scholar
2004 Ρητορική [Rhetoric]. Thessaloniki: Zitros.Google Scholar
Balzacq, Thierry
2005 “The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audiences and Context”. European Journal of International Relations 111: 487–511. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boukala, Salomi
2016 “Rethinking Topos in the Discourse Historical Approach: Endoxon Seeking and Argumentation in Greek Media Discourses on ‘Islamist Terrorism’.” Discourse Studies 18 (3): 249–268. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buzan, Barry, and Ole Waever
(eds) 1998 Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Cottle, Simon
2011 “Media and the Arab Uprisings of 2011: Research Notes.” Journalism 12(5): 647–659. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cottle, Simon, and David Nolan
2007 “Global Humanitarianism and the Changing Aid Field: Everyone was Dying for Coverage.” Journalism Studies 8 (6): 862–878. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gramsci, Antonio
1971 Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan
2004 “Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis: An Approach to Researching Online Behavior”. In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, edited by Sasha Barab, Rob Kling and James Gray. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney, Alice Chik, and Christoph A. Hafner
2015 “Discourse Analysis and Digital Practices.” In Discourse and Digital Practices: Doing Discourse Analysis in the Digital Age, edited by Rodney Jones, Alice Chik and Christoph A. Hafner, 1–18. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kelsey, Darren, and Lucy Bennett
2014 “Discipline and Resistance on Social Media: Discourse, Power and Context in the Paul Chambers ‘Twitter Joke Trial’.” Discourse, Context and Media 31: 37–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid, and Mahrou Zia
2014 “Persian Nationalism, Identity and Anti-Arab Sentiments in Iranian Facebook Discourses: Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Media Communication.” Journal of Language and Politics 13(4):755–780. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid, and Johann Unger
2015 “Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media: Power, Resistance and Critique in Changing Media Ecologies.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd edition), edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 206–233. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Kleczewski, David, and Ruth Amossy
2016 “Pragmatic and Value-based Argumentation in the 2015 Israeli Elections.” Israeli Affairs 22 (3–4): 772–787. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Matt
2008 “Securitization and the Construction of Security.” European Journal of International Relations 141: 563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mor, Yifat, Yiftach Ron, and Ifat Maoz
2016 “ ‘Likes’ for Peace: Can Facebook Promote Dialogue in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?” Media and Communication 4(1): 15–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Musolff, Andreas
2006 “Metaphor scenarios in public discourse”. Metaphor and Symbol 21(1): 23–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Page, Ruth
2012 “The Linguistics of Self-branding and Micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of Hashtags”. Discourse & Communication 6 (2): 181–201. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Page, Ruth, David Barton, Johann Unger, and Michele Zappavigna
2014 Researching Language and Social Media. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak
2009 “The Discourse Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 87–121. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2001 Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rubinelli, Sara
2009 Ars Topica: The Classical Technique of Constructing Arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Carl
1932 The Concepts of the Political. Chicago: UCP.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Scott
2003 Aristotle on False Reasoning: Language and the World in the Sophistical Refutations. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
Siapera, Eugenia
2013 “Tweeting #Palestine: Twitter and the Mediation of Palestine.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 1–17.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans, Bart Gerssen, and Bert Meuffels
2009 Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness: Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans, and Rob Grootendorst
1987 “Fallacies in Pragma-dialectical Perspective.” Argumentation 11: 283–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 “Rationale for a Pragma-dialectical Perspective.” In Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, edited by Frans Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, 11–28. Amsterdam: International Center for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
Waever, Ole
1995 “Securitization and Desecuritization.” On Security, edited by Ronnie D. Lipschutz, 46–86. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Michael
2003 “Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 471: 511–531. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
2001 “The Discourse Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–94. London: Sage.Google Scholar
2015 The Politics of Fear: What Right-wing Populist Discourses Mean. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele
2012 Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How we Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Anna De Fina & Alexandra Georgakopoulou
2020.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies, Crossref logo
Hansson, Sten & Ruth Page
2022. Legitimation in government social media communication: the case of the Brexit department. Critical Discourse Studies ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Rheindorf, Markus
2020.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Discourse Studies, ► pp. 622 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 april 2022. 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.