Argumentation in political interviews : analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency / Corina Andone.

Format:

Book

Author/Creator:

Andone, Corina.

Series:

Argumentation in context, 1877-6884 ; v. 5

Argumentation in Context ; 5

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Communication--Political aspects.

Communication.

Persuasion (Rhetoric)--Political aspects.

Persuasion (Rhetoric).

Rhetoric--Political aspects.

Rhetoric.

Interviewing.

Inconsistency (Logic).

Conversation analysis.

Reasoning.

Physical Description:

viii, 147 p. : ill.

Edition:

1st ed.

Place of Publication:

Amsterdam : John Benjamins Pub. Co., 2013.

Language Note:

English

Summary:

In Argumentation in Political Interviews Corina Andone uses the pragma-dialectical concept of strategic maneuvering to gain a better understanding of political interviews as argumentative practices. She analyzes and evaluates the way in which politicians react in political interviews to the accusation that the position they currently hold is inconsistent with a position they advanced before. The politicians' responses to such charges are examined for their strategic function by concentrating on a number of concrete cases and explaining how the arguers try to enhance their chances of winning the discussion. In addition, the soundness criteria are formulated for judging properly when the politicians' responses are indeed reasonable.This book is important to argumentation theorists, discourse analysts, communication scholars and all other researchers and students interested in the way in which language is used for the purpose of persuasion in a political context.Corina Andone is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

Contents:

Argumentation in Political Interviews

Editorial page

Title page

LCC data

Table of contents

Preface

1. Introduction

1.1 Responding to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview

1.2 A pragma-dialectical perspective on argumentation

1.3 Objectives and method of the study

1.4 Organization of the study

2. Analytically relevant responses to an accusation of inconsistency

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Communicative and interactional purposes of an accusation of inconsistency

2.3 Responses to an accusation of inconsistency

2.4 Conclusion

3. The political interview as an argumentative activity type

3.1 The institutional goal of political interviews

3.2 The initial situation

3.3 Starting points

3.4 Argumentative means

3.5 The possible outcome

3.6 Conclusion

4. Strategic maneuvering in response to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview

4.1 Accusations of inconsistency in a political interview

4.2 Retracting a standpoint in response to an accusation of inconsistency

4.3 Exploiting commitments to win the discussion

Pattern 1: 'it depends'

Pattern 2: 'we need to be clear'

Pattern 3: 'there is a world of difference'

4.4 Conclusion

5. The reasonableness of responses to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview

5.1 The reasonableness of confrontational strategic maneuvering

5.2 Soundness conditions

5.2.1 Soundness condition of openness

5.2.2 Soundness condition of relevance

5.2.3 Soundness condition of clarity

5.3 Conclusion

6. Conclusion

6.1 Main findings

6.2 Implications for further research

References

List of figures

Name index

Subject index.

Notes:

Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN:

9789027271754

9027271755

OCLC:

853238829