Page 152 - 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. 152
What Do We Know about the World?
mental to their ends. Hence, given a context like that of a provincial or
national election, arguments may be seen as being used for certain pur-
poses by the agents in the argument exchanges. These purposes can be
classified and accordingly arguments used may be seen as playing a role.
There is no determinate list of ends arguers have in using arguments, and
so no determinate catalogue of roles has been established. Walton and I
felt free to invent a short list of four dialectical roles which we noticed re-
curring in the data of political campaign arguments. These were the pol-
icy-positive role (used to defend a statement or policy), the policy-critical
role (used to criticize a statement or policy), the person-critical role (used
to criticize an opponent rather than his/her position), and the defensive
role (used to deflect criticisms). After reading Benoit (op. cit.) we added
a fifth by dividing his category of acclaiming into positive and negative
roles, allowing us to add a person-positive role.
Studying an argument agent’s choice of roles will tell us something
not only of his/her/its resources, but also about the possibilities it sees
for advancing its cause. The analysis of dialectical roles must, however,
be tempered by the following two dialogical considerations.
5. Dialogical roles: Is an argument being used to initiate discussion
of an issue, or is it a response-argument, made as a reply or alternative to
an argument or policy already before the public? My hunch is that re-
sponse arguments are more likely to be cast in a negative role than argu-
ments that introduce a new topic or policy. But it is not impossible that
a response argument has a positive role or that an initiating argument
has a negative one. This is a factor to take into consideration when con-
structing argumentation profiles.
6. Dialogical position: Whether an argument agent is the incum-
bent party or a challenger establishes his/her/its dialogical position, is
something which may well affect the choice of dialectical roles an agent
gives to arguments. My inkling is that an incumbent party is more like-
ly to have occasion to use the defensive role, clarifying misinterpreta-
tions, and defending policies. Challengers we would expect to be on the
attack, being critical of both policies and incumbents. Of course, both
sides will likely make arguments in all the roles, but certain roles may
predominate for an agent during the course of a campaign. In sum, in
constructing the argumentation profiles, both the dialogical positions
of the agents, and the dialogical roles of their arguments, must be taken
into consideration.
The above concepts present themselves as being of interest to argu-
mentation workers who attempt to make argumentation profiles. To il-
mental to their ends. Hence, given a context like that of a provincial or
national election, arguments may be seen as being used for certain pur-
poses by the agents in the argument exchanges. These purposes can be
classified and accordingly arguments used may be seen as playing a role.
There is no determinate list of ends arguers have in using arguments, and
so no determinate catalogue of roles has been established. Walton and I
felt free to invent a short list of four dialectical roles which we noticed re-
curring in the data of political campaign arguments. These were the pol-
icy-positive role (used to defend a statement or policy), the policy-critical
role (used to criticize a statement or policy), the person-critical role (used
to criticize an opponent rather than his/her position), and the defensive
role (used to deflect criticisms). After reading Benoit (op. cit.) we added
a fifth by dividing his category of acclaiming into positive and negative
roles, allowing us to add a person-positive role.
Studying an argument agent’s choice of roles will tell us something
not only of his/her/its resources, but also about the possibilities it sees
for advancing its cause. The analysis of dialectical roles must, however,
be tempered by the following two dialogical considerations.
5. Dialogical roles: Is an argument being used to initiate discussion
of an issue, or is it a response-argument, made as a reply or alternative to
an argument or policy already before the public? My hunch is that re-
sponse arguments are more likely to be cast in a negative role than argu-
ments that introduce a new topic or policy. But it is not impossible that
a response argument has a positive role or that an initiating argument
has a negative one. This is a factor to take into consideration when con-
structing argumentation profiles.
6. Dialogical position: Whether an argument agent is the incum-
bent party or a challenger establishes his/her/its dialogical position, is
something which may well affect the choice of dialectical roles an agent
gives to arguments. My inkling is that an incumbent party is more like-
ly to have occasion to use the defensive role, clarifying misinterpreta-
tions, and defending policies. Challengers we would expect to be on the
attack, being critical of both policies and incumbents. Of course, both
sides will likely make arguments in all the roles, but certain roles may
predominate for an agent during the course of a campaign. In sum, in
constructing the argumentation profiles, both the dialogical positions
of the agents, and the dialogical roles of their arguments, must be taken
into consideration.
The above concepts present themselves as being of interest to argu-
mentation workers who attempt to make argumentation profiles. To il-
