“And All of That”: The Long List in Political Discourse

We look at long lists (i.e., longer than three parts) in political discourse, especially in talk shows from three cultures, the U.S., Pakistan, and the Netherlands, and ask how a long list is accomplished. Long lists are routinely produced in political discourse by extending the typical three-part list. The listing process to create a long list can happen in many ways, explicitly via counting verbally or physically and implicitly through other resources. These resources can also be used to project a list in advance and to create one retrospectively. Last, listing in politics creates two problems for the lister, requiring an artful application of the available listing resources. The audience may orient to only three parts, and the politician is faced with selecting the last item. Thus, we show that politicians use lists to structure their talk, but they also have to anticipate problems regarding the practice of listing

"So I know how to do this":The prototypical argumentative pattern in U.S.A. presidential debates

Debates are important events during presidential elections in the U.S.A. Candidates are juxtaposed and engage with each other on a wide range of issues. This poses the question how disagreement between the two candidates and the public is managed. The aim of this paper is to articulate the prototypical argumentative pattern used by candidates which shows that to defend that the public should vote for them, candidates recurringly make three central claims. Specifically, they claim that some political action has to happen, they will do that action if elected, while their opponent will not. This basic argument scheme – which could be referred to as campaign promise argumentation – is further expanded by candidates by responding to six distinct critical questions, resulting in a prototypical argumentative pattern designed to deal with potential criticisms against a bid to become president

Communicative Competence and Local Theories of Argumentation: The Case of Academic Citational Practices

When people argue in a specific context, they usually know exactly how to do that. The social knowledge participants have to form their expectations regarding the interaction is what we consider as their theory of argumentation. Elucidating the theories of the participants in argumentative exchanges is to formulate a local theory of argumentation. In this regard, we consider the ethnography of communication (EoC) as a framework to supplement our studies on argumentation. We believe there are three forms of social knowledge that affect how argumentation is conducted in context. First, participants know what is persuasive within their interactional context. Second, they know how this interaction is appropriately conducted. Third, they attempt to enact and recreate their understanding of the context through their talk