Constructing disagreement space

The study is a single case analysis and explores how disagreement space is constructed in a dialogue that addresses language ideology and identity issues in Belarus. Disagreement space is understood as a set of the interactant’s commitments, beliefs, intentions that can be reconstructed from their actions and “called out” by another participant (Jackson 1992). The interactional data includes the video-recording of the debate that was devoted to the issue whether Belarusian should be the only official language of Belarus. While two opponents are dominating parties in this debate, the host also plays an important role in this argumentative activity. The current study examines the host’s actions to shape disagreement space and argues that the host should be viewed as a valid party in a multi-party argumentative activity.

Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten

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.

Frozen

In this study, we consider the ways different degrees of dissent are established in interaction, especially in interactions among children. One important aspect in the development of the ability to argue is the framing of interactions as rather cooperative or agonistic. Different framings seem to allow for different forms of argumentative activity. The focus in this paper is on the mediation of degrees of dissensus in argumentation in child-child communication. It is established, we argue, through verbal as well as non-verbal means, and the agonistic and cooperativity can be indicators for the space argumentation has in child-child interaction.

Intersubjective Stance and Argumentation in Zimbabwean Parliamentary Discourse

Language use in the parliament is a matter of stance taking and appraisal of others and the self-invoking systems of socio-cultural value and dis/alignments. This chapter examines the language of evaluation and appraisal in parliamentary debates and speeches. In order to account for the language of evaluation and stance in the parliament, the study evokes the appraisal resource of engagement. The research draws its analysis from the key notions of appraisal and argumentation theories focusing on how parliamentarians position themselves dis/aligning with co-participants. The research examines how the continuous process of alignment impacts on argumentation in parliamentary debates. The research concludes that intersubjective stance is an argumentative activity that involves pro and contra argumentation with parliamentarians critically testing propositions submitted in the dialogic space.

Empathy, Not Truth: Can a Dialectical and Skeptical Argumentation Enhance Both Democracy and Human Rights Courts?

Who is the best moral reasoner, the judge or the legislator? The aim of this paper is to refine this question, by distinguishing between different metaethical assumptions. If the meta-ethical assumptions of arguers are incompatible or if their institutional goal is to establish some truth, there is no way of entering into a constructive argumentative activity. My claim is that only when arguers renounce any epistemic temptation and feel empathy with respect to others’ arguments, caninstitutions improve the quality of their judicial and democratic arguments, and therefore gain authority.

Empathy, Not Truth: Can a Dialectical and Skeptical Argumentation Enhance Both Democracy and Human Rights Courts?

Who is the best moral reasoner, the judge or the legislator? The aim of this paper is to refine this question, by distinguishing between different metaethical assumptions. If the meta-ethical assumptions of arguers are incompatible or if their institutional goal is to establish some truth, there is no way of entering into a constructive argumentative activity. My claim is that only when arguers renounce any epistemic temptation and feel empathy with respect to others’ arguments, caninstitutions improve the quality of their judicial and democratic arguments, and therefore gain authority.

Strategic maneuvering by persuasive definition in corporate crisis communication

This paper aims to explore the use of persuasive definition in a corporate weblog by examining how a blogger attempts to define the company’s role in response to criticisms in the cyber space. Making use of a pragma-dialectical research framework, corporate weblog is characterized as an argumentative activity type in the commercial domain in which the legitimacy of persuasive definition is contextually constrained. The paper first analyzes the institutional preconditions that restrict all the argumentative moves in a corporate weblog, and then investigates how the corporate blogger of Taobao, the biggest online shopping website in China, responds to criticism by redefinition to evade the burden of proof.

Practical Argumentation as Reasoned Advocacy

The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.