Page 150 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 150
What Do We Know about the World?
Doug Walton and I have finished one pilot study of the argumentation
in political campaigns, and we are now engaged in a second one.4 Our
work is similar to that of William Benoit who has studied the argumen-
tation in the nomination acceptance speeches by presidential candidates
in the United States from 1960 to 1996. In one study three basic func-
tions in the speeches were recognized, which were distinguished as ac-
claiming, attacking and defending.
Themes that portray the sponsoring candidate or party in a favourable light
are acclaims. Themes that portray the opposing candidate or party in an un-
favourable light are attacks. Themes that explicitly respond to a prior attack
on the candidate or party are defenses. (Benoit, 1999: 254)
Benoit’s leading research question was, “What is the relative fre-
quency of use of the functions of acclaiming, attacking and defend-
ing?” (253) He found that the Democratic Party nominees engaged in
acclaiming slightly more than the Republican party nominee did (77 %
to 68 %) but that the roles were reversed when it came to attacking (30 %
to 23 %) as well as defending (16 % to 3 %). Clearly, Benoit’s interests and
approach are consonant with our programme of creating argumentation
profiles by studying the argumentation behaviour of argument agents.
Our approach differs from his, however, in that we focus on arguments
as the basic of unit of interest.
In our first study, Walton and I sketched profiles on the basis of
which kinds of arguments and dialectical roles were utilized most fre-
quently by the agents. In our second study we are modifying and enlarg-
ing our inventory of argument kinds and roles, and adding some other
categories whose utility we want to test. We are experimenting to find
out which factors and categories can contribute to the making of use-
ful argumentation profiles. The following list of concepts is being con-
sidered:
1. Argument kinds: The primary classification tool we have is a list
of kinds of arguments, also called argument schemes. The schemes are,
roughly, definitions of different kinds of arguments. A comprehensive
list of the kinds of arguments that occur in political argumentation will
help shape a picture of an agent’s inclinations in argumentation. In our
first study we used the basic inventory of schemes identified in Wal-
ton’s Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation (2006), and we will use
the same list again, modified in light of what we learned in that study.
4 We studied the Ontario provincial election held in September-October 2011 (see Hansen and Wal-
ton, 2012b), and we are now gathering data on the provincial election held in Alberta, March–April,
2012.
Doug Walton and I have finished one pilot study of the argumentation
in political campaigns, and we are now engaged in a second one.4 Our
work is similar to that of William Benoit who has studied the argumen-
tation in the nomination acceptance speeches by presidential candidates
in the United States from 1960 to 1996. In one study three basic func-
tions in the speeches were recognized, which were distinguished as ac-
claiming, attacking and defending.
Themes that portray the sponsoring candidate or party in a favourable light
are acclaims. Themes that portray the opposing candidate or party in an un-
favourable light are attacks. Themes that explicitly respond to a prior attack
on the candidate or party are defenses. (Benoit, 1999: 254)
Benoit’s leading research question was, “What is the relative fre-
quency of use of the functions of acclaiming, attacking and defend-
ing?” (253) He found that the Democratic Party nominees engaged in
acclaiming slightly more than the Republican party nominee did (77 %
to 68 %) but that the roles were reversed when it came to attacking (30 %
to 23 %) as well as defending (16 % to 3 %). Clearly, Benoit’s interests and
approach are consonant with our programme of creating argumentation
profiles by studying the argumentation behaviour of argument agents.
Our approach differs from his, however, in that we focus on arguments
as the basic of unit of interest.
In our first study, Walton and I sketched profiles on the basis of
which kinds of arguments and dialectical roles were utilized most fre-
quently by the agents. In our second study we are modifying and enlarg-
ing our inventory of argument kinds and roles, and adding some other
categories whose utility we want to test. We are experimenting to find
out which factors and categories can contribute to the making of use-
ful argumentation profiles. The following list of concepts is being con-
sidered:
1. Argument kinds: The primary classification tool we have is a list
of kinds of arguments, also called argument schemes. The schemes are,
roughly, definitions of different kinds of arguments. A comprehensive
list of the kinds of arguments that occur in political argumentation will
help shape a picture of an agent’s inclinations in argumentation. In our
first study we used the basic inventory of schemes identified in Wal-
ton’s Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation (2006), and we will use
the same list again, modified in light of what we learned in that study.
4 We studied the Ontario provincial election held in September-October 2011 (see Hansen and Wal-
ton, 2012b), and we are now gathering data on the provincial election held in Alberta, March–April,
2012.
