Despite increasing interest in studying arguments from deontic authority of the general form “(1) \(\delta\) is a deontic authority in institution \(\varOmega\) ; (2) according to \(\delta\), I should do \(\alpha\), _C_: therefore, (3) I should do \(\alpha\) ”, the state of the art models are not capable of grasping their complexity. The existing sets of critical questions assigned to this argumentation scheme seem to conflate two problems: whether a person is subject to an authority of an institution in the (...) first place and whether the command issued within the context of a particular institution is eventually binding. For this reason, we introduce (1) a set of Basic Critical Questions to scrutinize the former issue, and (2) a set of more detailed questions related to specific features, also referred to as “parameters”, of institutional environments (Intra-Institutional Critical Questions). We identify major elements of institutional environments in which authoritative utterances are made and the crucial parameters of arguments from deontic authority. The selected evidence from the decisions of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court helps us show how these parameters may be used to reconstruct subtypes of this argument scheme, with their associated sets of critical questions. In specific institutional contexts, such detailed schemes are capable of grasping the complexity of appeals to deontic authority and thus should be used rather than general schemes. The reconstruction of argumentation schemes with critical questions shows how particular arguments may successfully be attacked. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 155-172.

This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (LNMA) with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a (...) theoretical level, is that the distinction between ontological and epistemic modals is highly problematic in LNMA. (shrink)

Argumentative indicators of discourse relations constitute crucial cues for the mining of arguments. However, a comprehensive lexicon of these linguistic devices is so far lacking due to the scarci...

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2018 Heft: 220 Seiten: 1-17.

Resumen: Este trabajo es un estudio de casos preliminar y cualitativo, que considera los intercambios dialógicos argumentativos, ante una tarea de dilema moral, de seis parejas de niños y niñas. El análisis de la información se fundamenta en dos enfoques, Visión General Analítica de la Pragmadialéctica, y el Argumentum Model of Topics de la Escuela de Lugano. El análisis de resultados indicó que todos los grupos son capaces de tomar una postura y defender su posición con al menos un argumento. (...) Sin embargo, a medida que los escolares crecen, van construyendo estructuras de argumentación mucho más elaboradas y aumentan la diversidad de loci utilizados. Se concluye que la VGA y el AMT han resultado ser herramientas útiles para describir el desarrollo argumentativo de los escolares a medida que ellos se hacen mayores. -/- Abstract (EN): This paper presents a preliminary and qualitative case study, which considers the argumentative dialogical exchanges, given in a moral dilemma task, of six pairs of boys and girls. The analysis of the information is based on two approaches, Analytical Overview of the Pragmadialectics, and the Argumentum Model of Topics of Lugano School. The results indicated that all groups are able to defend their position with at least one argument. However, as schoolchildren grow up, they build much more elaborate argumentation structures and increase the diversity of loci used. It is concluded that the AO and the AMT have proved to be useful tools to describe the argumentative development of schoolchildren as they get older. (shrink)

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective manages differences and pursues disagreement through argument in a polylogue. The macroscope addresses broader analytic problems posed by various conceptualizations of large-scale argument, such as fields, spheres, communities, and institutions. The design incorporates a two-tier methodology for detecting argument patterns of the arguments performed in arguing by an interactive collective that produces views, or topographies, of the ways that issues are (...) generated in the making and defending of standpoints. The design premises for the macroscope build on insights about argument patterns from pragma-dialectical theory by incorporating research and theory on disagreement management and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The design reconceptualizes prototypical and stereotypical argument patterns for characterizing large-scale argumentation. A prototype of the macroscope is tested on data drawn from six threads about oil-drilling and fracking from the subreddit Changemyview. The implementation suggests the efficacy of the macroscope’s design and potential for identifying what communities make controversial and how the disagreement space in a polylogue is managed through stereotypical argument patterns in terms of claims/premises, inferential relations, and presentational devices. (shrink)

The “extreme consequence” is a very common pattern in advertising messages that presents an odd, even negative, situation resulting from the use of the advertised product as a good reason to buy it. By analyzing selected advertisements employing this pattern using the conceptual integration theory and the Argumentum Model of Topics, we aim to understand how “extreme consequence” works at the rhetorical and argumentative levels. The analyses allow us to detect the typical, generic, cognitive, and argumentative structure underlying the pattern (...) and to identify the rhetorical and argumentative role played by its main components, namely exaggeration and cause-effect relation. (shrink)

The present paper examines how discursive representations and emotive constructions underpin an argumentative dynamic that emerges from apparently non-argumentative statements, like those found in newspaper headlines. Our data comes from Greek broadsheet newspapers in the polarized context of the Greek crisis. First, we outline an analytic synergy that scrutinizes representational meaning and the semiotization of emotions in headlines. We then move towards the reconstruction of the inferential passage, contained in the headlines, that unites the implicit standpoint with its supporting argument.