Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?

Mohammed, Dima

doi:10.1007/s10503-018-9473-y

Cited by 17 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The comparative study that we provide here, at a first step apparently deals with a polylogical network that starts from different ideological orientations, in different places and with different audiences in Europe. In a second step, we observe that intertextual linkages permeate leaders' speeches that were linked to the recontextualization of similar constructions, while the political figures' argumentation that converges, made them "argumentative associates" (Mohammed, 2019) in the specific time span. On the basis of this overall convergence a standing standpoint could emerge along the following lines: Restrictive measures are necessary to address the pandemic adequately.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In this sense, their discursive constructions tend to converge, naturalize an authoritarian tendency on the basis of restrictive measures. To explain this convergence in theoretical terms, we appeal to the notion of standing standpoint (Mohammed, 2019). In Mohammed's (2019) words,…”

Section: Argumentative Polylogues and Standing Standpoint In Times Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To explain this convergence in theoretical terms, we appeal to the notion of standing standpoint (Mohammed, 2019). In Mohammed's (2019) words,…”

Section: Argumentative Polylogues and Standing Standpoint In Times Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Boukala

Serafis

2022

The Pandemic of Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter intends to provide an argumentative perspective on the justification of securitization by Southern EU’s political leaders in times of a public health crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic by examining instances of public discourses, specifically addresses to the nation of four EU leaders with different ideological positioning, in different social settings of the European South. Based on the theory of securitization, we perceive public debate as a polylogical phenomenon where multiple actors, from multiple (ideological) positions, in multiple times and spaces interact, creating a complex network of public communication while expressing and supporting their claims. Through this prism, our aim is to shed light on argumentative polylogues by unveiling whether and how the state of emergency has been justified. We employ the frame of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2016) to study the socio-historically conditions against which established endoxical premises are (re)constructed by the political leadership and how these interrelate with specific argumentation strategies (topoi) in the social settings under scrutiny. We then draw on the quasi-Y structure provided by the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) (Rigotti & Greco, 2019) to scrutinize the interplay of topical and endoxical premises in the development of single standpoint-argument couplings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Argumentative Polylogues and Standing Standpoint In Times Of...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Boukala

Serafis

2022

The Pandemic of Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The notion of standing standpoint, introduced by Mohammed (2018) can be invoked to fully capture the largely implicit downstream argumentative value of news: standing standpoints are virtual implicit standpoints that can be presumptively attributed to an arguer on the basis of the following criteria: (a) the standpoint is relevant to an issue that has public presence, (b) certain statements of the arguer can provide support for the standpoint and (c) these statements have been "publicly associated" with the standpoint as arguments, (d) the arguer does not openly reject the standpoint. If these criteria are met the discourse of the arguer functions like an "enthymeme where the conclusion is unexpressed" (Mohammed, 2018)-the conclusion being the standing standpoint.…”

Section: 1amentioning

confidence: 99%

Staying Up to Date with Fact and Reason Checking: An Argumentative Analysis of Outdated News

Musi

Rocci

2022

The Pandemic of Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper tackles outdated news about COVID-19 as a type of misinformation from an argumentative perspective, focusing on the fact-checker Snopes. In rapidly changing information environments the circulation of outdated news can be highly detrimental causing risky behaviors. Such type of misinformation is difficult to pin down through fact-checking since encompassing different types of contents, motivations and channels. To fully understand this phenomenon we deem necessary to move away from a naïve view of fact checking to an argumentative one. But what are the argumentative configurations of outdated statements in the context of the current information ecosystem? To answer this question we rely on the distinction between upstream and downstream argumentation to anchor the kind of issues put forward by outdated statements. We then take as a sample all the news that have been rated as “outdated” and “miscaptioned” by Snopes during the pandemic and analyse the type of source, the semantic type of news claim and the argumentative role played by the outdated information. We come up with an argumentative taxonomy of outdated news where the presence of multimodal information as well as the semantic-argumentative role played by outdated statements pattern with the spread of mis- and disinformation.

show abstract

“…20 Moreover, from the point of view of argumentation theory(Lewiński and Mohammed, 2016), if these inferences get incorporated into the common ground, they might be used as arguments from example in support of racists views. They have argumentative potential(Mohammed, 2019a(Mohammed, , 2019b for a racist speaker. Such speaker can use (1-2) to defend their standpoint saying things like "Those refugees are dangerous, don't you see what happened in Germany?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Provocative insinuations

Armas

Ruiz²

2021

Daimon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En este artículo analizamos oracio-nes que, sin constituir explícitamente discurso de odio, no obstante transmiten un mensaje de odio. Por ejemplo, en el titular “Refugiado iraquí es condenado en Alemania por violar y asesinar una chica adolescente”, la presencia de “refugiado iraquí” no parece arbitraria. Al contrario, invita una inferencia racista en contra de los refugiados iraquíes. Argumentamos que estas inferencias no pueden ser descritas como slurs, términos neutros utilizados como insultos, dogwhistles o implica-turas conversacionales. En cambio, proponemos caracterizar estas inferencias como insinuacio-nes, concretamente insinuaciones provocativas, debido a que ninguna respuesta parece efectiva a la hora de bloquearlas. In this paper we analyse utterances that, without explicitly constituting hate speech, nevertheless convey a hateful message. For example, in the headline ‘Iraqi Refugee is convicted in Germany of raping and murdering teenage girl’, the presence of ‘Iraqi refugee’ does not seem arbitrary. To the contrary, it is responsible for inviting a racist inference against Iraqi refugees. We defend that these inferences cannot be described as slurs, ethnic or social terms used as insults, dogwhistles or conversational implicatures. Rather, we propose that these inferences are insinuations, specifically provocative insinuations, as no conversational response seems effective at blocking them.

show abstract

Standing Standpoints and Argumentative Associates: What is at Stake in a Public Political Argument?

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 publications

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Securitization, Emergency and the Rediscovery of Responsibility in Times of Pandemic: Analyzing Political Discourses from the European South

Staying Up to Date with Fact and Reason Checking: An Argumentative Analysis of Outdated News

Provocative insinuations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About