Violence metaphors for cancer

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-140
Author(s):  
Dunja Y. M. Wackers ◽  
H. José Plug ◽  
Gerard J. Steen
Keyword(s):  
Public Discourse ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Stakeholder Groups ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation

Abstract The use of violence metaphors for cancer has been widely criticised both in academic and non-academic contexts (see Harrington, 2012; Semino et al., 2015). Whereas previous research on violence metaphors for cancer has focused on the use and functions of these metaphors by and for different stakeholder groups, no studies to date have examined the (various) arguments that are raised in public discourse that is critical of said metaphors. Applying concepts from pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), this paper sets out to analyse types of argumentation occurring in critical public discussions of violence metaphors for cancer. Close argumentative analyses of actual discourse examples will be provided in order to illustrate the differences between two types of argumentation in particular, i.e. pragmatic and symptomatic argumentation.

scholarly journals Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ton Van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Stylistic Analysis ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Argumentative Strategy ◽  
Argumentative Strategies ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Important Basis

The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is often carried out according to an argumentative strategy. Language users make an effort to present their strategic manoeuvres in a specific way and the analysis of the stylistic choices in actual argumentative discourse is the most important basis for identification and analysis of argumentative strategies. In this article, it is shown what requirements must be satisfied by a systematic stylistic analysis of argumentative discourse, and the results of such an analysis are illustrated by means of a case study.

scholarly journals Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128
Author(s):  
Ton van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentative Activity

Abstract Strategic manoeuvring in plenary debates in the Second Chamber of Dutch ParliamentThe (extended) pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is carried out within specific argumentative activity types. In this paper it is argued that pragma-dialectics offers a fruitful approach to study political debate. The approach and its added value are discussed and illustrated on the basis of a specific type of political debate in a specific argumentative activity type: the plenary debate in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.

Public Discourse on Kids Lore in Post-Katrina New Orleans

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mona Lisa Saloy ◽  
Cheryl Ajirotutu ◽  
Harry Vanodenallen
Keyword(s):  
New Orleans ◽  
Public Discourse

Discursive construction of an anti-immigration Europe by a Sweden Democrat in the European Parliament

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-439
Author(s):  
Kamber Güler
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Direct Democracy ◽  
Public Discourse ◽  
Social Power ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discursive Construction ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
The Public ◽  
Political Group

Discourses are mostly used by the elites as a means of controlling public discourse and hence, the public mind. In this way, they try to legitimate their ideology, values and norms in the society, which may result in social power abuse, dominance or inequality. The role of a critical discourse analyst is to understand and expose such abuses and inequalities. To this end, this paper is aimed at understanding and exposing the discursive construction of an anti-immigration Europe by the elites in the European Parliament (EP), through the example of Kristina Winberg, a member of the Sweden Democrats political party in Sweden and the political group of Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy in the EP. In the theoretical and methodological framework, the premises and strategies of van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach of critical discourse analysis make it possible to achieve the aim of the paper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document