Download
1 / 32
320 likes | 334 Views
Learn about strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse, where arguers aim for rhetorical effectiveness while maintaining dialectical standards. Topics include topical potential, manoeuvring in the confrontation stage, and dissociation.
E N D
Strategic manoeuvring Lesson 14
Strategic manoeuvring: an extended version of the pragma-dialectical approach […] the efforts arguers make in argumentative discourse to reconcile aiming for rhetorical effectiveness with maintaining dialectical standards (Houtlosser 2006: 383) • Aspects of SM aimed at the realization of the rhetorical objective: • the use of the most appropriate arguments or argument schemes from the available topical potential • Adaptation to the audiencedemands • use of appropriate presentation choice (see van Eemeren 2010, pp. 93 and ff.)
Topical potential The selection of topics in argumentation • much of an argument’s strength depends on the choice of effective topics • origins go back to classical rhetoric (topoi or loci) • In the pragma-dialectical perspective, topical potential is not limited to the argumentative stage proper, but extends to other stages as well
Manoeuvring in the confrontation stage • In the confrontation stage, topical selection consists in making the most effective choice in terms of potential issues for discussion, opting for those that create the most favourable conditions for the resolution to one’s advantage of a difference of opinion.
Strategic maneouvring in the confrontation stage • ISRAEL has sought to justify its military attacks on Gaza by stating that it amounts to an act of “self-defence” as recognised by Article 51, United Nations Charter. We categorically reject this contention. (From The Sunday Times, January 11, 2009) • Much has been written about the subjugation of Greece, the cradle of democracy, under a second German occupation. And much of it is nonsense. […] Yet there is something to the critics’ charges. For many countries, such as Spain, the EU has been an anchor of democracy. But as the crisis persists […] the legitimacy of the enterprise will suffer.(Europe against the people? Efforts to save the euro cannot run againstthe will of the voters indefinitely, TheEconomist Nov 12th 2011)
Strategic maneouvring in the confrontation stage (2) AUDIENCE MEMBER: Good evening. What key elements for a fair, workable immigration policy need to be put in place to actually make it work effectively? (Presupposition: the current policy is not fair, workable and effective) • Gerard, what I would say is that immigration is simply too high at the moment. It has been these last ten years, and it does need to come down t. I think the pressures that we've put on housing and health and education have been too great. (Cameron)
Strategic maneouvring in the confrontation stage (2) Brown: You know, I've heard the concerns around the country. I've been listening to people. I know people feel there are pressures because of immigration. That's why we want to control and manage immigration • [replying to Cameron’s remark that immigration got out of control] I don't like these words, because we're bringing it under control. Net inward migration is falling and will continue to fall as a result of the measures we've taken.
Strategic maneouvring in the confrontation stage (2) • The truth is that there is good immigration and there is bad immigration. I was in … a paediatric hospital in Cardiff a few months ago …. There was a ward standing completely empty, though it had the latest equipment. I said to the ward sister "What's going on? Why are there no babies being treated?" She said "New rules mean we can't employ any doctors from outside the European Union with the skills needed". That's an example of where the rules are stopping good immigration which actually helps our public services to work properly. That's where I want to see, not an arbitrary cap. (Clegg)
Dissociation Dissociation: [An] argumentative technique that serves to resolve the contradictions that a notion that originally was covered by a single term and that was considered a unity, gives rise to. Three conditions a. from an existing conceptual unit, expressed by a single term, one or more aspects are split off; b. through this operation a contradiction or paradox is resolved because now a proposition can be considered true in one interpretation of the original term and false in the other; c. the reduced and the split off concept are assigned a different value. (van Rees 2005, p. 64)
How dissociation manifests itself “From this definition a number of potential clues for dissociation can be derived. None of these is sufficient to serve as an unambiguos indicator for dissociation, but a combination may result in a strong indication that this argumentative technique is being used” (van Rees 2005) Three groups of indicators, each corresponsing to a feature of dissociation
Dissociation • immigration i. good immigration ii. Bad immigration i. we need good immgration ii. We’ll stop bad immigration
Indicators of dissociation • Indicators of separation ‘distinction’, ‘difference’, ‘not the same as’, ‘something else than’, ‘except’, ‘precizate’ • Sports are sports except jury sports, another word for unfair. b. Indicators of negation/opposition ‘not’ + ‘but’ • The chief conductor, in spite of what he calls a “bar on public speaking”, told about a number of abuses in the company. (…) The spokesman for National Rail, though, says that it is not a question of a bar on public speaking for personnel, but the agreement is that personnel encounter the press through public relations officers appointed for that task. • Indicators of value ‘essential-incidental’, ‘central-peripheral’, ‘real-pseudo’, ecc • Jury sports must go back to the circus, ice show, or freak show. Everything is all right, as long as we are delivered from them during the real sports events.
Manoeuvring in the opening stage • Identifying or negotiating a common ground on the basis of which common starting points can be agreed upon by the parties involved in a critical discussion is fundamental. • If the starting points are identified correctly in the opening stage, they will provide «commitments the audience can be held to in the argumentation and concluding stage» (van Eemeren 2010: 110)
Strategic maneouvring in the opening stage Do you love yourold man? Wellthen… Common starting point (object of agreement): the childloveshisfather (van Eemeren 2011: 36) • Starting points/objects of agreement • Descriptive: starting points concerning what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958/1969) call ‘the real’. They include what van Eemeren calls facts, truths and presumptions. Supposedly shared universally [endoxa] • Normative: starting points concerning ‘the preferable’, i.e. values. In principle shared by particular audiences
Strategic maneouvring in the opening stage • Thank you for smoking (initial debate) • Common starting points: • Companies are after profit (implicit, shared knowledge) • We can all agree that there’s nothing more important than American children… (explicit)
Strategic argumentation in the argumentation stage • AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hello, I'm Chris Nelms, I work in the building trade. I can't see any advantage of us being in Europe. I think there's far too much interference politically and legally, and I just wonder what you intend to do to stop it? • GORDON BROWN: You know, there's three million reasons why we need to be part of the European Union, and they're called jobs. Three million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. […]. Half our trade is with the European Union. 750,000 businesses - I'm sorry it's not your business, raising the question about the building trade - but 750,000 businesses trade with Europe. • (UK TV debates, General Election 2010)
Strategic argumentation in the argumentation stage 1) Cf. a possible alternative argument: • We should stay in the EU because our identity has its roots in a common European identity, based on history, culture and geography • Effective in the context? 2) Thank you for smoking (00:48:06)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMaqT7zxItY Foggia, 29 April 2010
Case studies • UK 2010 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk5HvJmy_yg • US 2016 • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0
TV prime ministerial debates UK 2010Opening remarks Brown • These are no ordinary times, and this is no ordinary election. We've just been going through the biggest global financial crisis in our lives, and we're moving from recession to recovery, and I believe we're moving on a road to prosperity for all. Now, every promise you hear from each of us this evening depends on one thing: a strong economy. And this is the defining year. Get the decisions right now, and we can have Secure jobs, we can have standards of living rising, and we can have everybody better off. Get the decisions wrong now, and we could have a double-dip recession. And because we believe in fairness, as we cut the deficit, over these next few years, we will protect your police, your National Health Service, and we will protect your schools. I know what this job involves; I look forward to putting my plan to you this evening.
PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT Act X is desirable/undesirable Because X leads to consequence Y And consequence Y is desirable/undesirable Standpoint: you should vote for me Because if you vote for me I’m going to do x, y, z And x, y, z are desirable (x, y, z = secure jobs, better standards of living, everybody better off) Appeal to logos and pathos (sense of urgency, crucial moment, changing would be a risk)
Presentational devices (Brown) • Antithesis: get the decisions right now… get the decisions wrong…. • Repeated also in the second debate and third debate: ‘soundbite’ • Now, not everyone has the answers, but I say get the big decisions wrong and Britain's security and jobs are at risk. Get the big decisions right, and we can have a prosperous, fairer, greener and better Britain. (db 2) • Three part list to underline desirable effects • we can have Secure jobs, we can have standards of living rising, and we can have everybody better off. • Assertive speech acts: evaluation of reality • Relational processes of attribution (These are no ordinary times / this is no ordinary election / every promise depends on a strong economy / this is the defining year • Third person (we) • Second person (you hear/ get)
TV prime ministerial debates UK 2010 Opening remarks CAMERON I think it's great we're having these debates, and I hope they go some way to restore some of the faith and some of the trust into our politics […] The expenses saga brought great shame on parliament. I'm extremely sorry for everything that happened. Your politicians, frankly all of us, let you down. Now, there is a big choice at this election: we can go on as we are, or we can say no, Britain can do much better; we can deal with our debts, we can get our economy growing and avoid this jobs tax, and we can build a bigger society. But we can only do this if we recognise we need join together, we need to come together, we need to recognise we're all in this together. Now, not everything Labour has done in the last 13 years has been wrong - they've done some good things and I would keep those, but we need change, and it's that change I want to help to lead.
Presentational devices (Cameron) • Not openly argumentative. Prevalently expressive • I + mental processes: to be happy / hope / to feel sorry • All of us (audience exclusive) + self reproaching speech act / admitting guilt • Conciliatory approach • Soundbite: • we need join together, we need to come together, we need to recognise we're all in this together • We're all in this together, and that's how we will build the big and strong society I believe we need in our country. (db 2) • We/our (inclusive of both audience and adversaries) • self-promotion preceded by a concession: Now, not everything Labour has done in the last 13 years has been wrong… BUT we need change • Appeal to pathos/ethos
US 2016 • Hillary Clinton Vs Donald Trump: first debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEHPrYUcoi0
2016 US elections: first debate The centralquestion in this election isreallywhatkind of country wewant to be and whatkind of future we'llbuildtogether. Todayismygranddaughter's second birthday, so I thinkaboutthis a lot. First, wehave to build an economy thatworks for everyone, not just thoseat the top. Thatmeansweneed new jobs, goodjobs, with risingincomes. I wantus to invest in you. I wantus to invest in your future.Thatmeansjobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewableenergy, and small business, becausemost of the new jobswill come from small business. Wealsohave to make the economy fairer. Thatstarts with raising the national minimum wage and alsoguarantee, finally, equalpay for women's work. I alsowant to see more companies do profit-sharing. Ifyou help create the profits, youshould be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top. And I wantus to do more to support peoplewho are struggling to balance family and work.I'veheard from so many of youabout the difficultchoicesyou face and the stressesthatyou're under. So let'shavepaid family leave, earnedsickdays. Let's be surewehaveaffordablechild care and debt-free college. How are wegoing to do it? We'regoing to do it by having the wealthypaytheir fair share and close the corporate loopholes. Finally, wetonight are on the stage together, Donald Trump and I. Donald, it'sgood to be with you. We'regoing to have a debatewherewe are talkingabout the importantissuesfacingour country. Youhave to judgeus, who can shoulder the immense, awesomeresponsibilities of the presidency,who can put intoaction the plansthatwill make your life better. I hopethat I will be able to earnyour vote on November 8th.
TRUMP: Thankyou, Lester. Ourjobs are fleeing the country. They'regoing to Mexico. They'regoingto manyothercountries. You look atwhatChinaisdoing to our country in terms of makingour product. They'redevaluingtheircurrency, and there'snobodyin ourgovernmentto fightthem. And wehave a verygoodfight. And wehave a winningfight. Becausethey'reusingour country as a piggybank to rebuild China, and manyothercountries are doing the samething. So we'relosingourgoodjobs, so many of them. Whenyou look atwhat's happening in Mexico, a friend of mine whobuildsplantssaidit's the eighthwonder of the world. They're building some of the biggestplantsanywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the UnitedStates, as he said, not so much. So Ford isleaving. Youseethat, their small car divisionleaving. Thousands of jobsleaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They'reallleaving. And wecan'tallowit to happenanymore. As far aschild care isconcerned and so manyotherthings, I think Hillary and I agree on that. Weprobablydisagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and whatwe'regoing to do, butperhapswe'll be talkingaboutthatlater. Butwehave to stop ourjobs from beingstolen from us.Wehave to stop our companies from leaving the UnitedStatesand, with it, firingall of theirpeople. Allyouhave to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis. Theyleft -- fired 1,400 people. They'regoing to Mexico. So manyhundreds and hundreds of companies are doingthis. Wecannotletithappen. Under my plan, I'll be reducingtaxestremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That'sgoing to be a job creator likewehaven'tseensince Ronald Reagan. It'sgoing to be a beautiful thing to watch. Companies will come. Theywillbuild. Theywillexpand. New companies will start. And I look very, verymuchforward to doingit. Wehave to renegotiateour trade deals, and wehave to stop thesecountries from stealingour companies and ourjobs.
