Strategic Maneuvering in Treatment Decision-Making Discussions: Two Cases in Point

Over the past decade, the ideal model of shared decision-making has been increasingly promoted as the preferred standard of doctor-patient communication in medical consultation. The model advocates a treatment decision-making process in which the doctor and his patient are considered coequal partners that carefully negotiate the treatment options available in order to ultimately reach a treatment decision that is mutually shared. Thereby, the model notably leaves room for—and stimulates—argumentative discussions to arise in the context of medical consultation. A paradigm example of a discussion that often emerges between doctors and their patients concerns antibiotics as a method of treatment for what is presumed to be a viral infection. Whereas the doctor will generally not encourage treatment with antibiotics, patients oftentimes prefer the medicine to other methods of treatment. In this paper, two cases of such antibiotic-related discussions in consultation are studied using insights gained in the extended pragma-dialectical theory to argumentation. It is examined how patient and physician maneuver strategically in order to maintain a balance between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, as well as an equilibrium between patient participation and evidence-based medication, while arguing a case for and against antibiotics respectivel

Towards a Model of Pragmatic Justification

It is stated that justification may be a prerequisite for any claim that is made, whether the claim is about a weather forecast by a meteorologist, an accusation of negligence by an employee against his or her employers, or a doctor's diagnosis. Justification denotes a communicative event which is meant to compensate for the violation of a certain norm or to enable recipient to understand better something unpredicted or disputed.Although justification is ubiquitous in everyday life, it has so far remained relatively unexplored. This study provides the first investigation of justification as a communicative event and from a pragmatic point of view. It paper attempts to develop a model which can be used for the analysis of data in relation to pragmatic justification. Additionally, the workability of the model will be tested against data collected from political speeches produced by Tony Blair and Barack Obama

Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: an argumentative analysis

The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on (N?=?22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others’ discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns and which argumentative techniques they saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism (sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.info:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersio

ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING CONSTRUCTION OF EFL WRITING CLASS THROUGH DECLARATIVE SPEECH ACTS APPROACH

ABSTRACTThis study investigates how Indonesian undergraduate EFL students construct argumentative essays through critical discussion using Declarative speech acts and pragmatic approaches. This study employed a qualitative research method. The data consist of argumentative essays authored by undergraduate students majoring in English at a private university in Indonesia (N=34). Students worked in pairs to discuss a controversial topic, separated into protagonist and antagonist groups. The analysis showed that students used four steps of argumentation: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and conclusion. Most students used confrontation and opening stages in the introduction, argumentation stage in developing a paragraph, and end with a conclusion. To understand the purpose of argumentation, the students used four types of speech acts, which have different functions: assertive, commissive, declarative, and directive speeches. Implementing the declarative speech acts theory helps the students comprehend argumentative writing and trains them to have good critical thinking in resolving different opinions. ABSTRAKPenelitian ini mengkaji bagaimana siswa EFL Indonesia menuliskan esai argumentatif melalui diskusi kritis dengan menggunakan pendekatan pragma-dialektika Van Eemeren dan Grootendorst (1970) dan pragmatis Searle (1969). Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif. Data berasal dari esai argumentatif semester ketiga yang ditulis oleh mahasiswa Indonesia di jurusan bahasa Inggris. Tiga puluh empat siswa di kelas menulis mendiskusikan topik yang berbeda. Siswa bekerja berpasangan untuk mendiskusikan topik kontroversial, dipisahkan menjadi kelompok protagonis dan antagonis. Analisis mengklaim bahwa siswa menggunakan empat langkah argumentasi: konfrontasi, pembukaan, argumentasi, dan kesimpulan. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa sebagian besar siswa menggunakan tahap konfrontasi dan pembukaan dalam pendahuluan, tahap argumentasi dalam mengembangkan paragraf, dan diakhiri dengan kesimpulan. Untuk mengetahui tujuan penggunaan argumentasi, siswa menggunakan empat tindak tutur, yang memiliki fungsi berbeda: asertif, komisif, deklaratif, dan direktif. Menerapkan teori pragma-dialektika membantu siswa memahami tulisan argumentatif dan melatih mereka untuk memiliki pemikiran kritis yang baik dalam menyelesaikan pendapat yang berbeda.How to Cite: Nasihah, D., Elfiyanto, S. (2022). Argumentative Writing Construction of EFL Writing Class Through Declarative Speech Acts Approach. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 9(2), 192-210. doi:10.15408/ijee.v9i2.28522

Towards an authentic argumentation literacy test

A central goal of education is to improve argumentation literacy. How do we know how well this goal is achieved? Can we measure argumentation literacy? The present study is a preliminary step towards measuring the efficacy of education with regards to argumentation literacy. Tests currently in use to determine critical thinking skills are often similar to IQ-tests in that they predominantly measure logical and mathematical abilities. Thus, they may not measure the various other skills required in understanding authentic argumentation. To identify the elements of argumentation literacy, this exploratory study begins by surveying introductory textbooks within argumentation theory, critical thinking, and rhetoric. Eight main abilities have been identified. Then, the study outlines an Argumentation Literacy Test that would comprise these abilities suggested by the literature. Finally, the study presents results from a pilot of a version of such a test and discusses needs for further development

Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in prime minister's question time

Tese arquivada ao abrigo da Portaria nº 227/2017 de 25 de Julho-Registo de Grau EstrangeiroDeze 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

Dissociation in Reasoning and Argumentation

This dissertation inquires into the nature of dissociation – a maneuver through which a single entity is subdivided and arranged according to a hierarchy – as proposed by Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. Drawing on their New Rhetoric Project, Perelman’s regressive philosophy, and research on argumentation schemes, I develop ways of conceptualizing, analyzing, and appraising dissociation as it is utilized in reasoning and argument in natural language. I first examine Chaim Perelman’s regressive philosophy to better situate argumentation in relation to demonstration, then delineate the Project’s framework of argumentation as constituted by a speaker, an audience, and an argumentative discourse. Argumentation is defined here as a symbolic act increasing audience members’ epistemic adherence to a thesis, based on their adherence to the premise and the scheme’s changing of their “level of adherence.” Additionally, I conceptualize dissociation in relation to association, breaking links, and what I call “re-confirming connecting links.” In the process of conceptualization, I defend the position that dissociation and three other categories of argument contain, but are not reducible to, argumentation schemes proper. Based on the four-partite category of argument and the premise-scheme-thesis structure, I analyze eight examples of dissociation and validate the notion that dissociation makes use of various argumentation schemes proper in advancing definitive theses, subdividing an entity, and arranging the subdivided entities according to a hierarchy. Building upon the analysis of dissociation, I explore ways in which to appraise dissociation by incorporating regressive philosophy, critical questions, and universal audience. Principles of regressive philosophy remind the critic that argumentation challenges the totality of experience in the rhetorical situation, never achieves certainty, and leaves room for revision. Critical questions address specific points that dissociation must answer in order to count as a “cogent” argument. The universal audience, anchored in particular audience members, must be constructed to maintain the balance between normative orientations of appraisal as well as realistic expectations of the rhetorical situation. Besides advancing our understanding of dissociation, this dissertation contributes to a richer understanding of the New Rhetoric Project, defends relativism in argumentation, and emphasizes the significance of production as well as appraisal of argument

Confrontational Argumentative Strategies in the Discourse of Foreign Policy Experts

The aim of this study is to explore the discursive practices of foreign policy experts. While policy decisions involving war and peace keep people alarmed all over the globe, most of these decisions are shaped by policy experts who work on influencing public opinion through the media (Manheim, 2011). This study adopts a critical discursive stance and uses argumentation analysis to examine the ideological backdrop to the discourse of thirty opinion articles authored by American foreign policy experts in print media. Drawing on the Pragma-dialectical method of augmentation analysis (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004), and more particularly on its notion of strategic maneuvering, the analysis examines the confrontational strategies used by this group of experts and attempts to determine the rhetorical goals pursued by these strategic maneuvers