Abstract
Parliamentary debates are an argumentative interaction in which Members of Parliament (MPs) employ varied language devices in order to win debates in their favour. However, in an effort to win the debate at all costs, some parliamentarians seem to sensationalise their arguments in order to win favour or support from both internal and external audiences - the rationale judge. Sensationalism in argumentation is a presentation of an argument in a specific way in order to appeal to the hearer or the other participant’s emotions or feelings. This article examines the role of sensationalism in argumentation, drawing its examples from the Zimbabwean parliamentary debates. The study is qualitative in nature, utilising a case study research design. It is couched in the Extended Pragma-Dialectic Theory of Argumentation. Debates from the Zimbabwean parliament are purposively sampled and the analysis is based on the argumentation theoretical framework. The article concludes that the main function of sensationalist language in parliamentary argumentation is rhetorical rather than dialectic. Arguers utilise sensationalist language to convince and win the debate in their favour. The use of sensationalism as an argumentative move is misused or abused, as it is a fallacious move.
Highlights
This article discusses the notion of argumentation in parliamentary discourse
This section focuses on the analysis of parliamentary debates from Zimbabwean parliament with the interest to identify and examine instances of sensationalist language realised in argumentation
The present article discussed sensationalism in argumentation as it is realised in Zimbabwean parliamentary debates
Summary
This article discusses the notion of argumentation in parliamentary discourse. It is devoted to the examination of sensationalism in argumentation in the context of the parliamentary debates. With the increasing paradigm shifts and political polarisations in the Zimbabwean political landscape, it is important to examine the language and discourse that express the political agendas, the argumentation strategies, the deeper motivations and the ultimate goals of actors on the political stage in general, and in parliamentary institutions in particular (Ilie 2010). I characterise the discourse and the institutional context of parliament where the act of sensationalism in argumentation is realised. I argue for the presents of sensational argumentative patterns realised in the discourse of parliamentarians. I conclude the article citing the findings of the research and suggesting areas for further study
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
