Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis

IF 0.6 Q3 COMMUNICATION
A. Gâţă
{"title":"Characteristics of a detached argumentative style in public policy analysis","authors":"A. Gâţă","doi":"10.1075/jaic.20023.gat","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This study is a contribution to the recently introduced notion of argumentative style (van Eemeren 2019) in the framework of the pragma-dialectical approach. It aims at characterizing a detached argumentative style,\n by focusing on a speech event pertaining to the communicative activity type organizational discourse, a report on EU environment and climate\n change policies. The analysis concerns the executive summary and the key findings of the report, reconstructed in the analysis as the\n concluding stage of the critical discussion corresponding to the pragma-dialectical model. The notion of text type (Adam 1992) used in the analysis has allowed a more fine-grained characterization of the detached argumentative style,\n especially since the communicative practice under analysis displays a specific discourse format and structure for reasons of\n conventionalization and institutionalization. In such circumstances, determined by the type of conventionalization imposed by the context,\n the adoption of a detached argumentative style appears to be a pre-requisite. In the concluding stage of a critical discussion the\n difference of opinion is not restated, while the most significant standpoints are synthetically (re)presented by an adequate balance of\n narrative, descriptive and metadiscursive text strategies meant to support the objectivity, the conciseness of the presentation and also\n ensuring the necessary density of information required in a report summary or the presentation of key findings, respectively. While explicit\n negative evaluations or formulations of standpoints are avoided, the recommendations are presented as open to adoption or reconsideration by\n policymakers.","PeriodicalId":41908,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Argumentation in Context","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20023.gat","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study is a contribution to the recently introduced notion of argumentative style (van Eemeren 2019) in the framework of the pragma-dialectical approach. It aims at characterizing a detached argumentative style, by focusing on a speech event pertaining to the communicative activity type organizational discourse, a report on EU environment and climate change policies. The analysis concerns the executive summary and the key findings of the report, reconstructed in the analysis as the concluding stage of the critical discussion corresponding to the pragma-dialectical model. The notion of text type (Adam 1992) used in the analysis has allowed a more fine-grained characterization of the detached argumentative style, especially since the communicative practice under analysis displays a specific discourse format and structure for reasons of conventionalization and institutionalization. In such circumstances, determined by the type of conventionalization imposed by the context, the adoption of a detached argumentative style appears to be a pre-requisite. In the concluding stage of a critical discussion the difference of opinion is not restated, while the most significant standpoints are synthetically (re)presented by an adequate balance of narrative, descriptive and metadiscursive text strategies meant to support the objectivity, the conciseness of the presentation and also ensuring the necessary density of information required in a report summary or the presentation of key findings, respectively. While explicit negative evaluations or formulations of standpoints are avoided, the recommendations are presented as open to adoption or reconsideration by policymakers.
公共政策分析中超然辩论风格的特征
这项研究是对最近在语用辩证方法框架下引入的论证风格概念(van Eemeren 2019)的贡献。它旨在通过关注与交际活动类型的组织话语有关的演讲事件,一份关于欧盟环境和气候变化政策的报告,来描述一种超脱的辩论风格。分析涉及报告的执行摘要和主要发现,在分析中重构为与语用辩证模型相对应的批判性讨论的结束阶段。分析中使用的文本类型概念(Adam 1992)允许对分离的论证风格进行更细粒度的表征,特别是因为分析中的交际实践由于约定俗成和制度化的原因而显示出特定的话语格式和结构。在这种情况下,由上下文强加的约定俗成的类型决定,采用超然的论证风格似乎是先决条件。在关键讨论的最后阶段,不重述意见分歧,而最重要的观点则通过叙述性、描述性和元话语性文本策略的适当平衡来综合(重新)提出,这些策略旨在支持客观性、陈述的简洁性,并确保报告摘要或主要结论的陈述中所需的必要信息密度。虽然避免明确的负面评价或制定立场,但建议是供决策者采纳或重新考虑的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
12.50%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of Argumentation in Context aims to publish high-quality papers about the role of argumentation in the various kinds of argumentative practices that have come into being in social life. These practices include, for instance, political, legal, medical, financial, commercial, academic, educational, problem-solving, and interpersonal communication. In all cases certain aspects of such practices will be analyzed from the perspective of argumentation theory with a view of gaining a better understanding of certain vital characteristics of these practices. This means that the journal has an empirical orientation and concentrates on real-life argumentation but is at the same time out to publish only papers that are informed by relevant insights from argumentation theory.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信