Confrontational Argumentative Strategies in the Discourse of Foreign Policy Experts

• Authors: Samira Allani
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this study is to explore the discursive practices of foreign policy experts. While policy decisions involving war and peace keep people alarmed all over the globe, most of these decisions are shaped by policy experts who work on influencing public opinion through the media (Manheim, 2011). This study adopts a critical discursive stance and uses argumentation analysis to examine the ideological backdrop to the discourse of thirty opinion articles authored by American foreign policy experts in print media. Drawing on the Pragma-dialectical method of augmentation analysis (van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 2004), and more particularly on its notion of strategic maneuvering, the analysis examines the confrontational strategies used by this group of experts and attempts to determine the rhetorical goals pursued by these strategic maneuvers.

Keywords

EN

argumentation; discourse; experts; foreign policy; strategic maneuvering

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 17
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 39-55

Dates

published

2019-03-30

Contributors

author

Samira Allani

• Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

References

• Audit Bureau of Circulation. 2014. The Top Ten US Newspapers By Largest Reported Circulation as of 2007. [Online] Available at: http://www.auditbureau.org/ [Accessed on: 2 July 2014]
• Blowers, Andrew, Boersema, Jan and Adrian Martin. 2005. Experts, Decision Making and Deliberative Democracy. Environmental Sciences 2. 1-3.
• Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
• Chilton, Paul. 1996. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang.
• Chilton, Paul and Christina Schäffner. 2002. Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse (Vol. 4). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Dijk, Teun. A. van and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
• Dijk, Teun. A. van. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
• Dijk, Teun. A. van. 2006. Discourse, Context and Cognition. Discourse Studies. 8 (1). 159-77.
• Dijk, Teun. A. van. 1995. ‘Elite Discourse and the Reproduction of Racism.’ In Rita Whillock and David Slayden (eds.), Hate Speech, 1-27. Newbury Park: Sage.
• Eemeren, Frans. H. van and Peter Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies. 1 (4). 479-497.
• Eemeren, Frans. H. van and Peter Houtlosser 2006. Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation. Argumentation 20 (4). 381-392.
• Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2018. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Springer.
• Eemeren, Frans H. van, et. al. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Albama Press.
• Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, Rob and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Fairclough, Isabela and Norman Fairclough. 2012. Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London: Routledge.
• Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak. 1997. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis.’ In Teun Adrianus van Dijk (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies. A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2. 258-284. London: Sage.
• Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change (Vol. 10). Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Hample, Dale. 2001. A Pragma-dialectical Analysis of the Inquisition. Argumentation 15. 135-149
• Hart, Christopher. 2013. Argumentation Meets Adapted Cognition: Manipulation in Media Discourse on Immigration. Journal of Pragmatics 59. 200-209.
• Ihnen, Constanza and John E. Richardson. 2011. ‘On Combining Pragma-dialectics with Critical Discourse Analysis.’ In Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, and Francisca Snoeck Hannemans (eds.), Keeping in Touch with Pragma-dialectics: In Honor of Frans H. van Eemeren, 213-244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Johnson, Ralph. 2000. Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
• King, Andrew and Floyd D. Anderson. 1971. Nixon, Agnew, and the “Silent Majority”: A Case Study in the Rhetoric of Polarization. Western Speech 35(4). 243-255.
• Lauerbach, Gerda and Anita Fetzer. 2007. ‘Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural Perspectives.’ In Anita Fetzer and Gerda Lauerbach (eds.), Political Discourse in the Media, 3-28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Lewiński, Marcin and Dima Mohammed. 2016. ‘Argumentation Theory.’ In Klaus Jensen, Robert Craig, Jefferson Pooley and Eric Rothenbuhler (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, 1-15. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
• Manheim, Jarod. 2011. Strategy in Information and Influence Campaigns: How Policy Advocates, Social Movements, Insurgent Groups, Corporations, Governments and Others Get what They Want. New York: Routledge.
• McNair, Brian. 2000. Journalism and Democracy: a Millennial Audit. Journalism Studies 1 (2). 197- 211
• Morin, Jean Frédéric and Jonathan Paquin. 2018. Foreign Policy Analysis: A Toolbox. Cham: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Mussolff, Andreas. 2004. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan
• Oswald, Steve, Herman, Thierry and Jérôme Jacquin. (eds.) 2018. Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Cham: Springer.
• Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l‘Argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Trans by J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, as The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, London: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Prior, Markus. 2013. Media and Political Polarization. Annual Review of Political Science 16. 101- 127.
• Reisigl, Martin. 2008. ‘Rhetoric of Political Speeches.’ In Ruth Wodak and Veronika Koller (eds.), Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere, 243-270. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
• Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination. London: Routledge.
• Rhetoricae Silva (2003). The Forest of Rhetoric. [online]. Available from http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm [Accessed: 19th July 2017].
• Toulmin, Stephen. E. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Turner, Stephen. 2001. What is the Problem with Experts? Social Studies of Science 31 (1). 123-49.
• Walton, Douglas. 2015. Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Walton, Douglas. 2007. Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion and Rhetoric. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Wilson, Patrick. 1983. Second-Hand Knowledge. An Inquiry into Cognitive Authority. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.
• Wodak, Ruth. 2011. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Wodak, Ruth. 2009. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology.’ In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 1-33. London: Sage (2nd revised edition).
• Wodak, Ruth. 2016. ‘Argumentation, Political.’ In Gianpietro Mazzoleni, Kevin. G. Barnhurst, Ken´ichi Ikeda, Rousiley Maia, and Harmut Wessler (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, 43-52. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
• Wodak, Ruth and Bernhard Forchtner. 2017. ‘Introducing the language-politics nexus.’ In Ruth Wodak, and Bernhard Forchtner (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics, 1-14. (Routledge handbooks in linguistics). Abingdon: Routledge
• Zarefsky, David. 2008. Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation. Argumentation 22 (3).317-330.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/rela-2019-0004