Suchergebnisse

When political actors respond to criticism by pointing at an inconsistency in the critic's position, a tricky political practice emerges. Turning the criticism back to the critic can be a constructive move that restores coherence, but it may also be a disruptive move that silences the critical voice and obstructs accountability. What distinguishes constructive cases from disruptive ones? This is the question this book sets out to answer. The question is addressed by adopting an argumentative perspective. Argumentation in Prime Minister's Question Time focuses on the turnabout employed by the British Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition. The turnabout is characterised as a particular way of strategic manoeuvring. The manoeuvring is analysed and evaluated by combining pragmatic, dialectical and rhetorical insights with considerations from the realm of politics. The outcome is an account of the turnabout's strategic functions and an assessment guide for evaluating its reasonableness. The book will be of interest to advanced students and researchers of argumentation, discourse analysis, communication and rhetoric.

Tricky turnabouts: accusations of inconsistency in response to criticism -- Confrontational manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency -- Prime minister's question time -- The strategic function of responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency in question time -- The reasonableness of responding to criticism with accusations of inconsistency in question time.

What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature (fact vs. value, theoretical vs. practical reasoning … etc). The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.

SFRH/BPD/76149/2011 UID/FIL/00183/2013 ; In this essay, I highlight the strategic discursive choices made by a politician who is arguing in pursuit of several goals. As a case in point, I examine an argumentative exchange from the European Parliament (EP), a venue where it is typical that politicians attempt to achieve several institutional goals. In analysing the exchange, which is part of the debate on the Conclusions of the European Summit of March 2012, I identify the positions taken, reconstruct the standpoints and arguments advanced, and analyse the discursive choices made in light of the different goals pursued. In the analysis, I am guided by the findings of an earlier examination of another EP debate, a debate on immigration in early 2011 (Mohammed, 2013). The arguers' discursive choices are analysed using the pragma-dialectical concepts of strategic manoeuvring and activity types (van Eemeren, 2010). The analysis enhances the understanding of the argumentative practice in EP debates as a multi-layered activity type in which several initial disagreements are discussed simultaneously and shows that the reconstruction of the argumentative exchanges as a series of several simultaneous discussions is necessary in order to capture the strategic design of argumentative moves. ; publishersversion ; published

In this paper, I critically examine the main accounts of goals in argumentative discourse, aiming to formulate an account that is suitable for the examination of public political arguments, where typically multiple legitimate goals are pursued simultaneously. Such arguments are viewed as contributions to what can be dialectically reconstructed as multiple simultaneous discussions, and are analysed as strategic manoeuvres that can under certain conditions be reasonable but may, if such conditions are violated, become fallacious.

Tese arquivada ao abrigo da Portaria nº 227/2017 de 25 de Julho-Registo de Grau Estrangeiro ; Deze studie beoogt een uitgebreide argumentatieve uiteenzetting te geven van een specifieke discussiezet in Prime Minister's Question Time, het vragenuurtje van de minister-president in het Britse Lagerhuis. Het behelst een pragma-dialectisch onderzoek naar beschuldigingen van inconsistentie die de minister-president doet in reacties op standpunten die door parlementsleden (MP's) van de oppositie naar voren zijn gebracht en waarin zij kritiek uiten op beleid, acties of plannen van de regering. In zulke zetten is het gebruikelijk dat de minister-president de gebondenheid van de MP aan het kritische standpunt bestrijdt door te wijzen op een vermeende inconsistentie tussen de huidige kritiek van de MP en een andere positie die aan hem kan worden toegeschreven. In deze studie wordt het pragma-dialectische instrumentarium toegepast en verder ontwikkeld om zowel een empirisch adequate uiteenzetting te geven als een uiteenzetting die kritisch inzicht biedt in dergelijke reacties. De onderzochte reacties van de minister-president worden gekarakteriseerd als een specifieke manier van strategisch manoeuvreren in de confrontatiefase waarmee een gunstige uitkomst van de argumentatieve confrontatie wordt nagestreefd die binnen de grenzen van de redelijkheid blijft (Hoofdstuk 2). De karakterisering toont de strategische functie van de reacties aan: zij gelden als pogingen van de minister-president om zijn tegenstanders zover te krijgen om hun kritische standpunten in te trekken op basis van de in principe redelijke grond dat iemand niet tegelijkertijd twee mutueel-exclusieve gebondenheden kan hebben. Bovendien werpt de karakterisering licht op de strategische keuzen die de minister-president maakt voor bepaalde onderwerpen, aanpassingen aan het publiek en stilistische middelen in zijn poging om de MP de vermeende inconsistentie te laten repareren door zijn huidige kritiek, in plaats van zijn eerdere positie, in te trekken. Om ervoor te zorgen dat de analyse van de reacties trouw is aan de specifieke eigenschappen van de institutionele context waarin de reacties plaatsvinden, wordt de argumentatieve praktijk in Question Time gekarakteriseerd als een argumentatief actietype (Hoofdstuk 3). De institutioneel geconventionaliseerde praktijk wordt gekarakteriseerd als een gelaagd actietype dat wordt gereguleerd door zowel parlementaire regels en conventies als politieke overwegingen. In de karakterisering wordt een hoofddiscussie geïdentificeerd over een standpunt als de prestatie van de regering voldoet en een andere discussie over een standpunt als in tegenstelling tot de andere partij kunnen wij goed leiderschap bieden, die parallel loopt aan de hoofddiscussie. Volgens de regels van Question Time kunnen MP's en de minister-president alleen kwesties aankaarten die te maken hebben met de verantwoordelijkheden van de regering. Er kan daarom alleen worden verwezen naar het verschil van mening over de politieke bekwaamheid van politieke partijen door te verwijzen naar het meningsverschil over de prestatie van de regering.

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 t

By looking at the argumentative uses of 'status updates', we discuss how Facebook design and context of use influenced opportunities for deliberation during the Egyptian phase of the Arab Spring in early 2011. Our basic point is that, somewhat against the grain of much debate on designing precise tools for supporting online argumentation, many benefits for open and critical argumentation result, in this case, from unintended, indeed parasitic, uses of online technologies. This is evident in the ways that (seemingly) politically trivial, "commercially colonized" and entertainment-oriented technologies such as Facebook or YouTube become major arenas for deliberative mobilization and serious argumentation.

By looking at the argumentative uses of 'status updates', we discuss how Facebook design and context of use influenced opportunities for deliberation during the Egyptian phase of the Arab Spring in early 2011. Our basic point is that, somewhat against the grain of much debate on designing precise tools for supporting online argumentation, many benefits for open and critical argumentation result, in this case, from unintended, indeed parasitic, uses of online technologies. This is evident in the ways that (seemingly) politically trivial, "commercially colonized" and entertainment-oriented technologies such as Facebook or YouTube become major arenas for deliberative mobilization and serious argumentation.

In public political discussions, an accusation of inconsistency can play a role in a number of discussions that run simultaneously. In this paper, I discuss the implications of considering the different simultaneous discussions to which the accusation contributes when examining it. While the different politi-cal considerations derived from these discussions can shed significant light on the strategic function of the accusation, such considerations may also lead to an inconsistent critical evaluation of it.