Argumentation最新文献_第8页

Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion 推特活动人士的争论：可持续时尚争议的理论、方法和例证

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-09-06 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1

Sara Greco

{"title":"Twitter Activists’ Argumentation Through Subdiscussions: Theory, Method and Illustration of the Controversy Surrounding Sustainable Fashion","authors":"Sara Greco","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>“Why are millions of dollars worth of orders being left unpaid?”. With tweets like this questioning brands’ policies, activists advocating for sustainable fashion re-discuss material starting points that are assumed by fashion brands, who argue that they are sustainable because they care about their workers’ conditions. This paper argues that activists use tweets to open <i>subdiscussions on material starting points</i> to engage citizens and consumers, re-discussing factual <i>data</i> that brands take for granted, such as the fact that they provide fair conditions for their garment workers. Activists justify their opening of subdiscussions, often through an argumentative pattern that includes an argument based on the <i>locus from effects to cause</i>. They argue that if there are negative effects, the brand cannot claim to care about the conditions of its workers. In discussing how subdiscussions are used by fashion activists, this paper also introduces a conceptualization of Twitter argumentation as a discussion that is not isolated, but is part of a polylogical argumentation that takes place in different venues. For this reason, the argumentation used in tweets is reconstructed as a response to a fashion brand’s communication campaigns around sustainability, which extend beyond the confines of Twitter. As an empirical illustration, this paper is based on the campaign targeting fashion retailer Primark; the dataset includes the brand’s website as well as activists’ tweets.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"37 1","pages":"1 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09579-1.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10717936","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}

引用次数: 5

Michel Meyer (1950–2022) 米歇尔·迈耶（1950–2022）

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09577-3

Christian Plantin

引用次数: 0

Frans H. A. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (Eds.): Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical Studies About Argumentative Discourse in Context 范·埃默伦和巴特·加森（编辑）：实际实践中的论证：语境中论证话语的专题研究

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09576-4

Harry Weger

引用次数: 1

Ruth Amossy: In defense of polemics, Springer, Argumentation Library, Volume 42, 2021 Ruth Amossy：为论战辩护，施普林格，论证图书馆，2021年第42卷

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-07-07 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09575-5

Jean-Claude Guerrini

引用次数: 0

Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Nanon Labrie: argumentation between doctors and patients: understanding clinical argumentative discourse Frans H.van Eemeren、Bart Garssen和Nanon Labrie：医生和患者之间的争论：理解临床争论话语

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-07-04 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09574-6

Lei ZHU, Wei WANG

引用次数: 0

Arguing with Children: Exploring Problems of Charity and Strawmanning 与孩子争论：慈善与流浪问题探析

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-06-04 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09572-8

Swagatanjali Bauri

引用次数: 0

“Agreement Builds and Disagreement Destroys:” How Polish Undergraduates and Graduates Understand Interpersonal Arguing “协议建立，分歧摧毁：”波兰本科生和毕业生如何理解人际争论

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-04-14 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09570-w

Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, Dale Hample

{"title":"“Agreement Builds and Disagreement Destroys:” How Polish Undergraduates and Graduates Understand Interpersonal Arguing","authors":"Kamila Dębowska-Kozłowska, Dale Hample","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09570-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09570-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This is a descriptive study (<i>N</i> = 243) of how Polish undergraduates and graduates perceive face to face arguing. We had some reasons to suppose that they would not be especially aggressive. The Polish culture has a number of proverbs warning against combative arguing, with “agreement builds and disagreement destroys” being illustrative. In addition, up until 1989 public dissent and open disagreements were suppressed by the government, and older generations often found it prudent to avoid arguing. We compared Polish results with previously reported data from the U.S. and Ukraine. We did, in fact, find that Polish orientations were less aggressive and more other-oriented than the two comparison nations. We also discovered Poland was more wary of engaging in interpersonal conflicts. Distinct sex differences appeared when we compared Polish men and women, with men being more forceful. Correlational patterns, especially concerning argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, were largely consistent with those originally found in the U.S. Power distance continues to have important connections with the standard argument orientation measures, but its patterns of correlation are not entirely consistent across the relatively small number of nations where the variable has been studied.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 3","pages":"365 - 392"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50479941","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}

引用次数: 1

Questions, Presuppositions and Fallacies 问题、预设和谬误

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09566-6

Andrei Moldovan

引用次数: 1

Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings 次优环境下的论证

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-03-28 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09571-9

Diego Castro

{"title":"Argumentation in Suboptimal Settings","authors":"Diego Castro","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09571-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09571-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>When parties attempt to persuade their opponents of the tenability of a certain standpoint using reasons, they will often find that the circumstances of the dialogue hinder their chances of resolution. Power imbalances, cognitive biases, lack of time or hidden interests are some of the circumstances they need to face. I will label these circumstances as <i>suboptimal settings for argumentation</i>. According to the pragma-dialectical tradition, higher-order conditions for critical discussion are unfulfilled in these cases (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jacobs, & Jackson, 1993). The main question of this paper is the following: what is the normative standard that parties in a discussion need to follow to arrive at a resolution within such circumstances? I will defend a middle-ground solution between two extreme ones.</p><p>The first extreme position, the <i>anything-goes policy</i>, claims that, given that the conditions for a reasonable exchange of reasons are not satisfied, the dialogue stands outside the domain of reason, so anything goes for the parties. The second extreme position, the <i>business as usual policy</i>, claims that, since critical discussion is a normative model, the same rules should apply in suboptimal settings. Finally, the <i>supernormal policy</i> that I defend claims that we need a more general and comprehensive norm that I refer to as a <i>supernorm</i> to evaluate these cases.</p><p>The supernormal policy divides argumentation into two stages: preparation and resolution. In the preparation stage, the parties attempt to restore or compensate for the suboptimality of the setting, while in the resolution stage, they attempt to resolve their disagreement. I contend that the moves of the preparation stage should be evaluated by using the supernorm instead of by the rules for critical discussion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004). At this point, the paper considers theoretical insights from Gilbert (1995, 1997, 2002) and Jacobs (2000, 2006) to understand what this entails.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 3","pages":"393 - 414"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-022-09571-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50520429","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}

引用次数: 3

Demanding a halt to metadiscussions 要求停止元讨论

IF 1.2 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2022-03-25 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-022-09569-3

Beth Innocenti

{"title":"Demanding a halt to metadiscussions","authors":"Beth Innocenti","doi":"10.1007/s10503-022-09569-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-022-09569-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>How do social actors get addressees to stop retreating to metadiscussions that derail ground-level discussions, and why do they expect the strategies to work? The question is of both theoretical and practical interest, especially with regard to ground-level discussions of systemic sexism and racism derailed by qualifying “not all men” and “not all white people” perform the sexist or racist actions that are the topic of discussion. I use a normative pragmatic approach to analyze two exemplary messages designed to halt retreats to metadiscussions about using “not all men” and “not all white people” qualifiers in discussions of systemic sexism and racism. I find that social actors use strategies that may at first glance appear to be out of bounds in an ideal critical discussion—e.g., demanding, shouting, cussing, sarcasm, name-calling—to cultivate a context where using not-all qualifiers becomes increasingly costly. The strategies are designed to get addressees to recognize that using not-all qualifiers is not an epistemic correction of a hasty generalization or ethical intervention to halt promulgation of stereotypes about men and white people. Instead, the strategies display that using not-all qualifiers is a fallible sign of willful hermeneutical ignorance, willful ignorance, and an attempt to reassert a measure of social dominance. These findings affirm the need to investigate the various strategies and normative materials social actors actually bring to bear to regulate disagreement.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"36 3","pages":"345 - 364"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50513454","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}

引用次数: 3