Managing disagreement throughyes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis

Abstract

The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on (N=22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others' discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns, and which argumentative techniques they saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism (sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also to the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.

Reopening the dialogue between the theory of social representations and discursive psychology for examining the construction and transformation of meaning in discourse and communication

“…However, it is difficult to identify any systematic commonalities in the analytical procedures they use. Some authors do not identify the analytical method(s) employed, and others use a wide rangethematic analysis (e.g., Howarth, 2002); rhetorical and argumentative discourse analysis, on its own (e.g., Uzelgun, Mohammed, Lewi nski, & Castro, 2015) or combined with thematic analysis (e.g., Batel & Castro, 2015;; content analysis (e.g., Gervais & Jovchelovitch, 1998); dialogical analysis (e.g., Caillaud, 2016;Mouro & Castro, 2012), among others. Some focus more on content, and others more on rhetorical and argumentative formats.…”

“…. but' ones (Castro, 2015;Jovchelovitch, 2007;Uzelgun et al, 2015), used for advancing more nuanced positions. Another example comes from work showing how asymmetrical power relations are reflected in the use of distinct communicative formats and how in turn these reproduce such asymmetries (Batel & Castro, 2009).…”

The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives

“…The role of discourse markers, a notion including-but not limited to-discourse connectives, has long been acknowledged and discussed in several argumentative frameworks. Connectives like the French mais (closest to but in English), have been studied from a very early stage by Anscombre and Ducrot (1977), and they are still an object of inquiry today as Uzelgun et al (2015) illustrate in their corpus analysis of "yes,but..." constructions in climate change debates and Rocci et al (2020) demonstrate in their recent cross-linguistic investigation on the use of adversative connectives like mais in young children's argumentation, showing that even the youngest amongst arguers resort to linguistic resources like argumentative indicators to structure discourse. Various collaborations in the field of argumentation and language (e.g.…”

“…In order to get a more fine-grained understanding on how these markers work in specific argumentative situations, empirical research in the form of corpus studies (see e.g. Uzelgun et al 2015) and experimental studies (see e.g. Schumann et al 2019) have to be conducted to investigate the role of connectives within argumentation.…”

Disagreement Studies Reviewed and My Coy Disagreements

“…Published by SCHOLINK INC. Netz, 2014;Bardovi-Harlig et al, 2015;Uzelgun et al, 2015) to make the results more objective, but the analyses and discussions on the data are inevitably subjective. For instance, what is the criterion of judging the effectiveness of disagreements?…”