From Theory of Rhetoric to the Practice of Language Use: The Case of Appeals to Ethos Elements

In their book Commitment in Dialogue, Walton and Krabbe claim that formal dialogue systems for conversational argumentation are “not very realistic and not easy to apply”. This difficulty may make argumentation theory less well adapted to be employed to describe or analyse actual argumentation practice. On the other hand, the empirical study of real-life arguments may miss or ignore insights of more than the two millennia of the development of philosophy of language, rhetoric, and argumentation theory. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology for adapting such theories to serve as applicable tools in the study of argumentation phenomena. Our approach is both theoretically-informed and empirically-grounded in large-scale corpus analysis. The area of interest are appeals to ethos, the character of the speaker, building upon Aristotle’s rhetoric. Ethotic techniques are used to influence the hearers through the communication, where speakers might establish, but also emphasise, weaken or undermine their own or others’ credibility and trustworthiness. Specifically, we apply our method to Aristotelian theory of ethos elements which identifies practical wisdom, moral virtue and goodwill as components of speakers’ character, which can be supported or attacked. The challenges we identified in this case and the solutions we proposed allow us to formulate general guidelines of how to exploit rich theoretical frameworks to the analysis of the practice of language use.

Peggio il rimedio del male? Argomenti e valori nelle controversie sulla vaccinazione contro il Covid-19

An interdisciplinary approach involving linguistics, rhetoric, and argumentation theory helps reveal how people argue their opinions and decisions. Although the pandemic is a common experience, its risks are perceived in different ways. For some, the real threat is Covid-19 and the remedy is vaccination. For others, however, the real risk is the vaccine and the “remedy” is refusal to get vaccinated. Justifying their opinions on the subject, Italian Internet users refer to common values (such as life, health, responsibility, etc.). However, since Internet users diagnose risks in different ways, they make use of shared values in differing ways. In this paper, the views of those for and against vaccination are analyzed from three complementary perspectives. The first one concerns the differences in which people conceive of various values. The second one shows how, using the same topoi, pro- and anti-vaccine advocates create different hierarchies of values that are fundamental to their respective decisions. Finally, the third one explores differences in the ways values are used in various argumentation schemes used in disputes on vaccination.

“Completely impartial opinion, okay?”

Sponsorships on YouTube – i.e., video creators on YouTube promoting a third-party product or service to their audience – have attracted considerable research interest recently in various disciplines. This multidisciplinary study analyzes it from the perspective of argumentation theory, specifically pragma-dialectics, which offers valuable new insights into the discursive tensions inherent to this type of promotion. These tensions arise between the creator’s relationship with their audience on the one hand, which is built upon ‘parasocial’ evaluations of authenticity and community, and the commercial third party brand on the other. The insights provided by the pragma-dialectic analysis are demonstrated by means of a case study examining a sponsorship segment by YouTuber PewDiePie, which shows that creators can employ specific types of presentational choices and audience adaptation strategically to undercut commitment to the sponsor while furthering the relationship with their viewers.

Multimodal practical argumentation and behavioral change: an analysis of the “Remember, the Metro is for everyone” campaign

The aim of this paper is to discuss how the verbal and the pictorial modalities interact to construe argumentative meanings in a transport campaign promoted by Lisbon’s subway company in 2018. As an instance of multimodal practical argumentation aimed at behavioral change, the campaign constitutes a significant corpus for discussing a series of relevant issues in the field, such as the illative reconstruction of arguments, the affordances of each modality in schematization, and the operationalization of pictorial analysis in regard to its argumentative potential. By drawing on a dialogue between Social Semiotics and Argumentation Theory, we arrived at the following conclusions: (i) the campaign established verbal and pictorial subcanvases specialized in construing certain parts of the main practical argumentation schemes; (ii) images were inherently tied to the construction of Circumstantial premises, thus exerting a direct role in argumentation, and tended to portray complex representational meanings, with three combined process types; (iii) the most productive argumentation schemes utilized were the instrumental practical reasoning scheme, the argument from values and the argument from consequences; (iv) there were two targeted audiences – the readers/clients in general, usually identified with the affected depicted people, and the clients whose behavior was being targeted in the campaign, represented as transgressors in the pictorial subcanvas

The Cambridge Handbook of the Philosophy of Language

The philosophy of language is central to the concerns of those working across semantics, pragmatics and cognition, as well as the philosophy of mind and ideas. Bringing together an international team of leading scholars, this handbook provides a comprehensive guide to contemporary investigations into the relationship between language, philosophy, and linguistics. Chapters are grouped into thematic areas and cover a wide range of topics, from key philosophical notions, such as meaning, truth, reference, names and propositions, to characteristics of the most recent research in the field, including logicality of language, vagueness in natural language, value judgments, slurs, deception, proximization in discourse, argumentation theory and linguistic relativity. It also includes chapters that explore selected linguistic theories and their philosophical implications, providing a much-needed interdisciplinary perspective. Showcasing the cutting-edge in research in the field, this book is essential reading for philosophers interested in language and linguistics, and linguists interested in philosophical analyses.

The Pragma-Dialectics of Dispassionate Discourse: Early Nyāya Argumentation Theory

Analytic philosophers have, since the pioneering work of B.K. Matilal, emphasized the contributions of Nyāya philosophers to what contemporary philosophy considers epistemology. More recently, scholarly work demonstrates the relevance of their ideas to argumentation theory, an interdisciplinary area of study drawing on epistemology as well as logic, rhetoric, and linguistics. This paper shows how early Nyāya theorizing about argumentation, from Vātsyāyana to Jayanta Bhaṭṭa, can fruitfully be juxtaposed with the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentation pioneered by Frans van Eemeren. I illustrate the implications of this analysis with a case study from Jayanta Bhaṭṭa’s satirical play, Much Ado about Religion (Āgamaḍambara).

Capital structure puzzle and banks: need for a unique approach?

Purpose This study aims to examine some of the commonly proposed deviants associated with the banking industry in the context of the capital structure puzzle. The paper considers the role of guarantees, information asymmetry and other frictional factors in the context of modern financial markets and examines whether these factors deserve special consideration in solving the capital structure puzzle for banks. Design/methodology/approach The authors adopt the argumentation theory model proposed by Toulmin (1958) as the methodological approach in this paper. Findings The findings from this paper demonstrate that any solution to the capital structure puzzle, whenever available, will also solve the capital structure puzzle for banks without additional efforts. The focus of future research should be on solving the generic capital structure puzzle for a universal set of firms rather than focusing on the banking industry as a subset with unique features. Originality/value The paper adopts a novel methodological approach offered by argumentation theory to pursue the enquiry. To the best of the knowledge, this paper is the first paper in the finance literature that uses argumentation theory to develop a theoretical construct. The finding from this study offers guidance for the proliferation of research paradigms in the capital structure puzzle.

Visual as Multi-Modal Argumentation in Law

Although the legal context is a formalized framework, in judicial proceedings there is also room for multi-modal argumentation. To the traditional logical mode, multi-modal argumentation theory has added three additional modes (the so-called “alternate” modes: visceral, kisceral, and emotional). They complement the logical mode in unclear legal cases, those with vague and ambiguous premises (both legal and factual). What is discussed here is visual argumentation as part of the visceral mode. Visual arguments can be appropriate in legal argumentation as evidence used to determine the lower premise. However, “thick” visuals invite alternate arguments to be applied in legal argumentation. This “invitation” is not exactly the same as with “thick” verbal texts because what is at issue are different semiotic resources.