Verbal Indicators of Argumentation and Explanation

Linguistic descriptions of (markers of) textual relations are not always immediately relevant for providing guidelines to the analysis of argumentative discourse. This is partly due to the fact that these descriptions usually do not distinguish between argumentative and explanatory relations. The paper argues that the identification of argumentative and explanatory relations can benefit from combining insight into the use of certain specific linguistic expressions with insight into the contextual preconditions for performing the speech acts of arguing and explaining

The use of hyperbole in the argumentation stage

In this paper I investigate what role the stylistic device of hyperbole can play in arguers’ strategic maneuvers in the argumentation stage of a discussion. First, I give an analysis of the general effects the use of hyperbole may have in argumentative discourse. Next, I specify how hyperbole may contribute to arguers’ dialectical and rhetorical aims in the argumentation stage of a discussion

What’s in a Name? The Use of the Stylistic Device Metonymy as a Strategic Manoeuvre in the Confrontation and Argumentation Stages of a Discussion

In this paper I investigate the role of the rhetorical trope metonymy in arguers’ attempts to reconcile their rhetorical with their dialectical aims in the confrontation stage and argumentation stage of a discussion. I show how different types of metonymies may help to present a party’s position advantageously and to make the strongest case

Commentary on: Manfred Kraus\u27 Arguing or Reasoning? Argumentation in rhetorical context

N/

The Reasonableness of Argumentation from Expert Opinion in Medical Discussions: Institutional Safeguards for the Quality of Shared Decision Making

The ideal of shared decision making starts from the assumption that physicians and patients are able to take a joint decision as to what is the best treatment. However, since medical consultations are to be viewed as discussions between an expert and a layman, in practice it will often be the case that the patient has to rely on the physician’s expertise. In this article we examine the extent to which the Dutch laws, guidelines and professional conventions within the medical domain positively influence the quality of the process of shared decision making, even in cases where the physician makes use of an argument from expert opinion. To this end, we will chart some of the most important institutional safeguards for the quality of medical decisions and analyze how these safeguards relate to the critical questions associated with the argument scheme of argumentation from expert opinion

Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves

In this paper the authors give a brief overview of the theoretical background of their research project “Linguistic indicators of argumentative moves.” Starting from the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion, they design dialectical profiles for capturing the moves that may or must be made at a particular stage or sub-stage of such a discussion. They explain how these dialectical profiles can be methodically exploited for systematically identifying the verbal expressions that can be indicative of any of these moves in argumentative practice

Unexpected resonant response in [Fe(001)/Cr(001)]_(10) /MgO(001) multilayers in magnetic field

We observed unexpected resonant response in [Fe/Cr]_(10) multilayers epitaxially grown on MgO(100) substrates which exists only when both ac current and dc magnetic field are simultaneously applied. The magnitude of the resonances is determined by the multilayer magnetization proving their intrinsic character. The reduction of interface epitaxy leads to non-linear dependence of the magnitude of resonances on the alternating current density. We speculate that the existence of the interface transition zone could facilitate the subatomic vibrations in thin metallic films and multilayers grown on bulk insulating substrates.Comment: 6 pages, 5 figure