辩论风格的功能多样性

IF 1.4 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION
Frans H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen
{"title":"辩论风格的功能多样性","authors":"Frans H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen","doi":"10.1177/14614456231163096","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In dealing with the different ways in which argumentative styles manifest themselves in various communicative practices from several communicative domains, van Eemeren and Garssen start from a definition of argumentative style that is connected with the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering. Depending on the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are followed, and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear, they make a general distinction between detached and engaged argumentative styles. In this article, they report on recent research in which it is examined to what extent the argumentative styles that are prototypically used in different institutional macro-contexts from the political, the diplomatic, the juridical, the faciliatory, the academic and the medical domain belong to these two categories. In the analyses they discuss, the authors combine specialized and domain-specific background knowledge with pragma-dialectical insight into the properties of argumentative discourse that determine the argumentative style.","PeriodicalId":47598,"journal":{"name":"Discourse Studies","volume":"25 1","pages":"510 - 529"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A functional diversity of argumentative styles\",\"authors\":\"Frans H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14614456231163096\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In dealing with the different ways in which argumentative styles manifest themselves in various communicative practices from several communicative domains, van Eemeren and Garssen start from a definition of argumentative style that is connected with the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering. Depending on the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are followed, and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear, they make a general distinction between detached and engaged argumentative styles. In this article, they report on recent research in which it is examined to what extent the argumentative styles that are prototypically used in different institutional macro-contexts from the political, the diplomatic, the juridical, the faciliatory, the academic and the medical domain belong to these two categories. In the analyses they discuss, the authors combine specialized and domain-specific background knowledge with pragma-dialectical insight into the properties of argumentative discourse that determine the argumentative style.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47598,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Discourse Studies\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"510 - 529\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Discourse Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231163096\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Discourse Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231163096","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

范埃默伦和加森从几个交际领域探讨了议论文风格在各种交际实践中的不同表现方式,他们从一个与实用主义辩证战略策略概念相联系的议论文风格定义入手。根据所做的辩论动作、所遵循的辩证路线和所产生的战略考虑,他们对超然和投入的辩论风格进行了一般性的区分。在这篇文章中,他们报告了最近的研究,在这些研究中,从政治、外交、司法、通俗、学术和医学领域的不同制度宏观背景下典型使用的议论文风格在多大程度上属于这两类。在他们讨论的分析中,作者将专门的、特定领域的背景知识与语用辩证的见解相结合,深入探讨了决定议论文风格的议论文的性质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A functional diversity of argumentative styles
In dealing with the different ways in which argumentative styles manifest themselves in various communicative practices from several communicative domains, van Eemeren and Garssen start from a definition of argumentative style that is connected with the pragma-dialectical notion of strategic maneuvering. Depending on the argumentative moves that are made, the dialectical routes that are followed, and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear, they make a general distinction between detached and engaged argumentative styles. In this article, they report on recent research in which it is examined to what extent the argumentative styles that are prototypically used in different institutional macro-contexts from the political, the diplomatic, the juridical, the faciliatory, the academic and the medical domain belong to these two categories. In the analyses they discuss, the authors combine specialized and domain-specific background knowledge with pragma-dialectical insight into the properties of argumentative discourse that determine the argumentative style.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Discourse Studies
Discourse Studies COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.60%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Discourse Studies is a multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal for the study of text and talk. Publishing outstanding work on the structures and strategies of written and spoken discourse, special attention is given to cross-disciplinary studies of text and talk in linguistics, anthropology, ethnomethodology, cognitive and social psychology, communication studies and law.
×
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