Marcin Lewiński

Collective Argumentative Criticism in Informal Online Discussion Forums

In this paper, I preliminarily characterize and evaluate two variants of a pattern of collective argumentative criticism in online political discussion forums available through Google Groups. In the first variant-horizontal criticism-a group of arguers jointly objects to distinct elements of complex argumentation put forward by their opponent. In the second variant-vertical criticism-a group of arguers acts in sequence by deepening the previously voiced criticisms against one element of their opponents argumentation. Such collective criticism of arguments is to a certain extent the reverse of a pattern of joint production of arguments, or a “tag-team argument, “identified by analysts of argument in small face-to-face groups. I argue that collective criticism can enhance public scrutiny of opinions expressed in informal deliberation, yet it can also lead to inconclusive argumentative discussions.

Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: an argumentative analysis

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 the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.

Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

Abstract Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.

Shale gas debate in Europe: Pro-and-con dialectics and argumentative polylogues:

In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the debate – Gazprom’s press release from October 2013 outlining Russia’s energy giant’s strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation.

Practical Argumentation in the Making: Discursive Construction of Reasons for Action

The goal of this chapter is to catalogue ways in which practical argumentation (PA)—argumentation aimed at deciding on a course of action—is produced discursively in deliberative discussions. This is a topic largely neglected in the literature on PA focused primarily on the abstract features of practical inference. I connect to this literature by arguing that the complex scheme of PA inferentially hinges on three different principles for rationally selecting means to achieve the desired goal: the means have to be either the best, satisfactory or necessary in order to ground the practical inference and thus be adopted. Based on these theoretically-derived distinctions, I scrutinise the linguistic indicators of the three types of means-goal inferences of PA. As a corpus, I use a set of official European Union policy documents called Transforming Europe’s energy system released in Brussels in July 2015.

Arguing in Portugal: A cross-cultural analysis

ABSTRACT We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US respondents, Portuguese report to argue more prosocially, cooperatively and civilly, and are more sophisticated in their reflections about arguing. We discuss these results in the context of the Portuguese notion of argumentation (argumentação) and Portuguese culture more broadly.

Favorite Battlegrounds of Climate Action Arguing About Scientific Consensus, Representing Science-Society Relations

This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to climate contrarian arguments: direct confrontation by dichotomous arguments, de-dichotomization by addressing background assumptions, and concession to minor scientific uncertainties. We discuss these strategies emphasizing the science-society relations evident in each.