52 research outputs found
Argumentative functions of visuals: beyond claiming and justifying
Up until now, the study of the argumentative role of visuals has been restricted to the formal concept of argument as product, consisting of premises and conclusion. In this paper, I adopt the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation as a social and discursive activity in order to explore argumentative functions of visuals that go beyond claiming and justifying. To do this I pay attention to the visual form and to the interaction between the verbal and the visual mode in argumentative discourse
Qualifying standpoints. Stance adverbs as a presentational device for managing the burden of proof
The aim of this study is to specify the strategic function of stance adverbs when qualifying a standpoint in an argumentative discussion. Stance adverbs are words like __clearly__, __obviously__, __perhaps__, __technically__, __frankly__, and __fortunately__. They have been extensively studied in the fields of semantics and syntax as well as pragmatics and discourse analysis. However, they have not specifically been studied with an interest in their effect on the progress of an argumentative discussion when they are used to qualify the standpoint. In this study a specific argumentative perspective is adopted, according to which the strategic function of stance adverbs is described with respect to the burden of proof that an arguer incurs when advancing a standpoint. In this view, an arguer chooses a particular way to qualify the standpoint in an attempt to successfully meet his obligation to defend the standpoint at the end of the argumentative discussion. The proposed theoretical account provides a basis for assessing whether the use of a stance adverb to qualify a standpoint observes the standards that should be followed for a reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion.UBL - phd migration 201
Co-opting Science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions
Exploiter la dialogicité argumentative: le cas des adverbes épistémiques et illocutifs qualifiant une thèse
On étudie ici des adverbes épistémiques comme probablement et certainement, et des ad-verbes illocutifs comme franchement et sincèrement, dans leur utilisation comme modalisateurs de l’énoncé qui sert à avancer une thèse. Afin de spécifier leur fonction stratégique, on prend en considération non seulement leurs propriétés pragmatiques et syntaxiques, mais surtout le contexte argumentatif et la structure dialogique qui sous-tend le discours argumentatif. Ainsi, on fait appel à la notion de charge de la preuve, qui est intrinsèquement liée à l’acte d’avancer une thèse, et qui joue un rôle crucial à chaque étape d’une discussion argumentative. Afin d’expliciter les étapes qui jalonnent une discussion argumentative et les tâches associées à chacune de ces étapes, on adopte l’approche pragma-dialectique, qui propose d’analyser le discours argumentatif comme un dialogue entre le Proposant et l’Opposant d’une thèse, tous deux cherchant à résoudre un conflit d’opinions par la mise à l’épreuve de la thèse et des ar-guments avancés à son appui. Considérant que la charge de la preuve revient au Proposant et est assurée par lui, on propose de se servir de cette notion pour décrire l’effet stratégique poursuivi par le locuteur qui a qualifié sa thèse par un adverbe épistémique ou un adverbe illocutif. L’effet stratégique de la qualification de la thèse par un tel adverbe réside dans le fait qu’elle permet au Proposant de cadrer sa thèse en lui ajoutant un commentaire qu’il présente comme admis par l’Opposant et dont il peut se servir pour défendre avec succès sa thèse
[Review of: M.A. van Rees (2009) Dissociation in argumentative discussions: a pragma-dialectical discussion]
Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal-visual divide
What would the consequences be for the interpretation and analysis of arguments if we were to accept that communication, within which arguments are produced and interpreted, involves the intricate use of more than just the verbal mode? In this paper, I discuss the shortcomings of the conception of argument as a purely verbal phenomenon and of the mere juxtaposition of the visual argument to the verbal, as suggested in the discourses of the sceptics and the advocates of “visual” argument, respectively. Instead I propose a multimodal perspective on the analysis of argumentative discourse, according to which there is no a priori division of labor between the verbal and the visual mode, and attention is paid both to the (verbal and visual) content and to the (verbal and visual) style. In this view, argument is neither verbal nor visual, since argument is not to be defined on the basis of the verbal, visual or other semiotic means by which it is realized in communication. As a case in point, I analyze an ad campaign for the promotion of the British newspaper The Guardian in the United States
Documentary Film as Multimodal Argumentation: Arguing Audio-Visually About the 2008 Financial Crisis
Analysing multimodal argumentation within the pragma-dialectical framework:Strategic manoeuvring in the front covers of The Economist
- …