Argumentation最新文献

{"title":"Political Apology as an Argumentative Activity Type: Understanding the Strategic Maneuvers in Rutte’s 2022 Slavery Apology","authors":"Yeliz Demir","doi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09697-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-026-09697-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Recent decades have witnessed an increase in the practice of political apologies. This does not, however, mean that apologizing for their past human rights violations is easy for states. Political apology involves a number of complexities that urge the apologizing political authority to make argumentative maneuvers to manage or mitigate the challenges inherent in this activity type. This paper aims to set out the institutional constraints of political apology and characterize it as an argumentative activity type (AAT) by employing the four pragma-dialectical parameters: the initial situation, procedural and material starting points, argumentative means, and possible outcome (van Eemeren and Houtlosser 2002, 2005; van Eemeren 2010). In order to illustrate how the institutional preconditions and the characteristics of the activity type manifest themselves in an actual apology text, the paper presents an analysis of the 2022 apology delivered by the then-Prime Minister Mark Rutte for the Netherland’s role in slavery, focusing on his strategic maneuvers to justify the apology and increase its sincerity and sufficiency. The analysis of Rutte’s maneuvering with the topical potential, audience demand, and presentational devices reveals how he achieves a bold acknowledgement of wrongdoing, a clear and emphatic statement of apology, and indicates directions for recovery.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"289 - 319"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2026-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-026-09697-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148366108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Approaching the Study of Argumentation from an Experimental Perspective","authors":"Jennifer Schumann,&nbsp;Steve Oswald","doi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09695-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-026-09695-2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 :","pages":"1 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147560578","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Experimental Insights into the Influence of Logic and Pragmatics on Conditional Argument Evaluation","authors":"Ermioni Seremeta,&nbsp;Monique Flecken,&nbsp;Menno Reijven,&nbsp;Jean Wagemans","doi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09691-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-026-09691-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Research on conditional reasoning has long debated whether human rationality is best captured by logicist accounts or by pragmatically oriented approaches such as Relevance Theory, which highlight contextual and communicative factors. While the former predict reliable adherence to logical schemata (e.g., <i>Modus Ponens</i> and <i>Modus Tollens</i>), experimental evidence consistently reveals systematic deviations, such as endorsement of invalid inferences. The latter view attributes such patterns not to irrationality, but to pragmatic expectations that guide interpretation. This study contributes to this debate by examining how logical validity and pragmatic congruency jointly shape the evaluation of conditional arguments. We report two experiments employing a 2 × 2 factorial design. In Experiment 1, participants evaluated conditional syllogisms framed in the standard 'if/then' format. Results showed that pragmatic violations slowed responses and, crucially, facilitated detection of logical invalidity, without hindering performance on valid arguments. Experiment 2 reformulated the same arguments using the Periodic Table of Arguments to replace 'if/then' conditionals with lever-based structures. Here, participants exhibited a generalized tendency to resist conditional inference, resulting in improved rejection of invalid arguments but reduced recognition of valid ones. Across both studies, pragmatic congruency alone did not predict accuracy, but interactions between pragmatic expectations and logical form systematically influenced evaluations. Taken together, the findings suggest that pragmatics does not override logic but modulates its accessibility: violations of pragmatic expectations invite deliberation. At the same time, semantic scaffolding, such as explicit 'if/then' cues, supports deductive reasoning. We propose that natural argumentation depends on this interplay, highlighting the need for situated accounts of logos.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 :","pages":"95 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-026-09691-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147559491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Emmanuel Macron Goes Social: Using Social Media Influencers as a Rhetorical Strategy","authors":"Keren Sadoun-Kerber","doi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09689-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-026-09689-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The use of social media influencers as a rhetorical strategy contributes significantly to reshaping Emmanuel Macron’s public image. Aimed at countering the perception of distance conveyed in his initial Covid-19 speeches, this study explores the strategy’s rhetorical mechanisms, illustrated by a surprising encounter with two Youtubers, presented as a reward. I argue that Macron’s ethos is redefined through a deliberate balance between authority and proximity – both crucial to his image repair. The influencers’ unique format enables the implementation of this dual strategy, but they go even further by functioning as intermediaries who assist the president in adapting his discourse to align with the expectations, language, and values of their followers. In this encounter, ethos serves as both a means and an end. The collaboration between the politician and the influencers raises several critical questions: How is the strategy constructed? Who holds authority, and upon which models of authority does each party construct and articulate their discourse? How does this interaction affect the president’s style and language? What are the characteristics of their interaction? This analysis explores how influencers shape Macron’s communication and reveals distinctive features of his rhetoric within this unique format. In doing so, broader questions emerge about the boundaries between rhetoric, argumentation, and manipulation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"263 - 287"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-026-09689-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148366107","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"(Mis)representing the Opposition and Rhetorical Success: Experimental Evidence on Faithful and Inaccurate Reformulations","authors":"Ramy Younis","doi":"10.1007/s10503-026-09692-5","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-026-09692-5","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Previous research in argumentation has closely examined distortions of the opposition—particularly the straw man—and has recently provided some experimental evidence on their effects on persuasive outcomes. However, comparatively little empirical attention has been given to the inverse practice of faithfully reformulating an opponent’s contribution. The effects of accurate and inaccurate representations on speaker <i>ethos</i> and perceived reasonableness also remain underexplored. This paper addresses these gaps through three pre-registered experimental studies comparing <i>accurate reformulation</i>, <i>misrepresentation</i>, and <i>no reformulation</i> of the opposition. Experiment 1 assesses the impact of these practices on perceived trustworthiness using a six-item, 7-point semantic differential scale. Experiment 2 examines judgments of reasonableness using a scale repeatedly employed in pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Experiment 3 measures persuasiveness at both the attitudinal and behavioral intention levels. Participants read a series of pre-tested argumentative exchanges between two speakers in a charitable-giving context. Results show that, in the cases examined, misrepresenting the opposition negatively impacted both trustworthiness and reasonableness judgments, addressing concerns that adhering to dialectical standards may diminish rhetorical success.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 :","pages":"119 - 146"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147561794","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is a Contradiction Between Arguments Less Likely to be Noticed When They are Implicit? An Experimental Case Study","authors":"Edoardo Lombardi Vallauri","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09686-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09686-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The paper investigates whether contradictory arguments are less likely to be noticed when they are expressed implicitly rather than explicitly. It builds on the fact that—in natural language productions—contradictions are often not logical but rather—<i>lato sensu</i>—pragmatic in nature. The study presents an experiment using ecological and slightly modified material. In a Facebook post, Italian journalist Selvaggia Lucarelli conveyed two contradictory arguments through implicatures, presuppositions and vague expressions. This text was presented to experimental subjects: half read the original version, while the other half read a version in which the implicit content had been made explicit. Their responses to specific questions indicate that the contradiction is more easily noticed when it occurs between explicit assertions rather than between arguments that must be at least partially inferred. A strong effect is observed in relation to age and education differences among the groups. These results may provide experimental insight into the conditions under which argumentation flawed by contradictions may still achieve its intended effect, as if the contradiction were not present.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 :","pages":"73 - 93"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2026-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09686-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147559461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Justin Eckstein: Sound Tactics: Auditory Power in Political Protests","authors":"Robert Asen","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09687-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09687-8","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"339 - 343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2026-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148366109","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are Insinuated Ad Hominem Arguments Rhetorically Effective? Yes, but Conditions Apply","authors":"Daniel de Oliveira Fernandes,&nbsp;Steve Oswald","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09681-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09681-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Personal attacks, which might convey damaging accusations, can take either an explicit or an implicit form. When they are communicated implicitly, they are referred to as <i>insinuations</i>. Their implicit nature is said to allow speakers to evade responsibility, preserve their public image, or even conceal argumentative weaknesses. In previous studies, we found that insinuated <i>ad hominem</i> arguments supporting disagreement made speakers appear more persuasive and trustworthy than explicit ones. However, further exploratory analyses of our data revealed that the advantage of insinuated over explicit <i>ad hominem</i> arguments was either only present or more pronounced when the personal attack was fallacious. This distinction between <i>explicitness</i> and <i>fallaciousness</i>—and their possible interaction—had not been accounted for in earlier work. To investigate this interaction more systematically, we conducted four preregistered experiments examining the combined effects of explicitness and fallaciousness in <i>ad hominem</i> arguments. Results indicate that there is no significant interaction between fallaciousness and implicitness, regardless of whether the personal attack targets the proponent’s expertise or character. While the often-assumed persuasive benefits of insinuation do not consistently emerge—and may even undermine argumentative support in the context of disagreemen—insinuation confers social advantages, as the speaker is perceived as more trustworthy overall. Moreover, valid arguments are consistently preferred over fallacious ones—not only when it comes to supporting disagreement, but also in shaping how the speaker is perceived. This suggests that while pragmatic subtleties, such as insinuation, can enhance perceived trustworthiness, argumentative soundness remains a central criterion in both rhetorical and interpersonal judgments.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 :","pages":"37 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09681-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147558796","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reconstructing Resistance: Pragmatic Argumentation Against Scientific Metaphor","authors":"Andreas Bilstrup Finsen,&nbsp;Jean Wagemans","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09675-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09675-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Metaphors abound in scientific discourse. Well-known examples include ‘the brain as a computer’ and ‘the organism as a machine’. Such metaphors, we argue, have both a theoretical and a practical aspect: they may serve as explanatory models, but also guide technological development, influence policy, reflect ideological assumptions, and reshape how we understand ourselves. These practical dimensions have prompted growing concern about the risks associated with metaphor use in science. While this concern has been widely noted, less attention has been paid to the argumentative forms such criticism may take. This article addresses that gap by reconstructing resistance to scientific metaphors—specifically computer and machine metaphors—as a form of pragmatic argumentation, in which metaphor use is challenged on the basis of its practical consequences. It further shows how such argumentation may be supported by subordinate causal arguments that appeal to the metaphor’s highlighting/hiding structure. Drawing on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, and analyzing examples from cognitive science, philosophy, and bioethics, the article demonstrates how metaphor resistance can be understood as a reconstructable form of argumentative critique—one in which metaphors become sites of normative contestation.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"211 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09675-y.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148366113","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Explaining Real-Life Practical Argumentation on the Basis of Empirical Data Regarding Cultural Value Priorities","authors":"Hristo Valchev","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09678-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09678-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The paper proposes a general account of how real-life practical argumentation can be explained on the basis of empirical data regarding cultural value priorities. This general account is built upon Schwartz’s theory of human values and the value-based theory of normative reasons for action, as well as upon the principle that an agent ought to perform an action, if and only if the total weight of the reasons for the agent to perform the action is greater than the total weight of the reasons for the agent not to perform the action. The practical significance of this general account is demonstrated by applying it in case studies of two real-life instances of practical argumentation – the 2018 Bulgarian debate about the ratification of the Istanbul convention and the 2015 Putin-Obama discussion about the intervention in the Syrian civil war. In both case studies, empirical data regarding cultural value priorities is gathered from the results from the European Social Survey. The theoretical significance of the general account is demonstrated through comparison and contrast with related research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"40 2","pages":"235 - 261"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2,"publicationDate":"2025-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148366112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}