Argumentum Model Of Topics Research Articles

Social construction of the image of the psychologist and of the patient: the role of implicit premises.

Nowadays, there is a growing consideration of people's mental health through awareness programs, policies, and practices promoted by international aid agencies and non-governmental organizations. Psychologists and patients are major actors in mental health, and their images are socially co-constructed. Nevertheless, there is still a lot of confusion about who "psychologists" and "patients" are or what a psychologist does. This muddle may underline stereotypes and broadly speaking stigma related to mental health. Therefore, confronting directly the ideas of "psychologist" and "patient" could be a little step in challenging stereotypes and making order in the panorama of mental health. In our study, we focus on the implicit contextual premises that shape particular framings around which the images of the psychologist and of the patient are socially and culturally co-constructed. In order to reach this goal, we have investigated the discourses and the multiple points of view behind the social image of the psychologist and of the patient from different sources or contextual domains: psychology online forums, university websites, and an online survey. From a methodological perspective and according to the pragma-dialectical approach, we have identified all the different standpoints and arguments related to the various conceptions of the psychologist and the patient. We have made explicit the implicit premises that lay behind each argumentative inference via the Argumentum Model of Topics. Based on these analyses, we have reconstructed the distinct framings at stake in the different contextual domains. The findings show that implicit contextual premises have huge power in constructing stigmatization in the ideas that lay people have toward the image of the psychologist and of the patient. In particular, we have observed that the more the contextual domain is defined, the more institutional premises dominate over individual ones; on the contrary, in informal contextual domains, heterogenous individual premises are prominent. Our study underlines that it is only by substituting old implicit premises with new unimagined ones that we can change subjacent contextual premises at the very core of stigma and the prototypical world's images.

(De-)constructing New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern’s initiative to wear the hijab after the Christchurch terrorist attack

Abstract This paper examines the discursive construction of Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern after she wore a veil following the unprecedented terror attack in two mosques in the city of Christchurch in 2019. The articles analyzed are collected from three main newspapers published in New Zealand’s three main cities. Analyzed using principles and tools from Critical Discourse Studies (CDS) and Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) more specifically, the articles reveal key arguments from both sides i.e. in support of and against this unparalleled initiative on behalf of a political leader in the western world. On the one hand, the majority of the news articles under analysis portray PM’s initiative as one that attempts to mitigate tension and conflict while bringing solidarity to a grief-stricken nation; and thus, are based on the ‘locus from ontological implications’. While the perspectives that oppose the initiative vary from explicit racist ones that present Muslims as threat to Zealand, to those who strongly believe such actions support the women oppression. Through a (de-)construction of the arguments opposing this move, the findings demonstrate that the opposition towards PM’s initiative is based on two main loci namely the ‘locus from correlates’ and the ‘locus from termination and setting up’

Unveiling the rationale of soft hate speech in multimodal artefacts

This article sets out to outline a methodological framework that enables us to unravel the underlying reasoning of covert hatred (i.e. soft hate speech), through an examination of the ways in which this is realised and, moreover, argumentatively justified in multimodal artefacts of the mainstream press. It focuses on a controversial case study – the release of the Italian hostage Silvia Romano – and how it was covered on the front pages of two right-wing Italian newspapers. It draws on the premises of multimodal critical discourse studies (MCDS), proposing a micro-level cross-fertilisation of a social semiotic discourse–analytical perspective for the analysis of multimodal meaning(s), realised on newspaper front pages, with the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT), which focuses on the analysis of argumentative inferences that stem from multimodal representational meaning(s).

Argumentative dynamics in representations of migrants and refugees: Evidence from the Italian press during the ‘refugee crisis’

The present paper analyses discursive representations and standpoint-arguments pairs, realized in articles of four mainstream Italian newspapers that report on migrants’ and refugees’ mobilization at the perceived peak of the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ (2015–2017). We draw on the scholarly agenda of Critical Discourse Studies, employing tools from corpus linguistic perspectives, which allow us to generalize over the way in which the relevant minorities are represented in our corpus. Then, focusing on a smaller sample of negative representations, we outline a methodological synthesis in order to scrutinize instances of representational meaning in newspapers articles and trace what is argumentatively inferred in discursive representations. To that end we exploit tools from systemic functional and cognitive linguistics as well as the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) for the analysis of inference. In this sense, we demonstrate how discriminatory representations do not only portray migrants and refugees in a negative light but also justify discrimination through the argumentative dynamic they develop.

Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics

The inferential relation drawn between a reason and a claim constitutes the basis of all argument approaches and models. This article conducts a concept-based comparative literature review that aims to compile and compare four contemporary argument models that are used in the analysis of everyday discourse: the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Argumentation theory and models are inspired, on the one hand, by discursive approaches in the emphasis put on the content and context, and on the other, from analytical philosophy and logic in the application of rational norms and standards. Before examining the four models, developed in the framework of argumentation theory, the article positions the argument approach between the social constructionist and empirical approach of discourse analysis and the formal and normative approach of logic. In examining the four argument models and their analytical reconstruction operations, it seeks to clarify their approach to inferential relations in everyday communication and illustrate their analytical differences. Throughout the four sections, schematic illustrations of how each model reconstructs a simple everyday argument are thus provided. In the conclusion, the models are compared discussing the type of studies each model is most suitable for and the cases for which each can be used most fruitfully.

An Interdisciplinary Approach to Investigate Preschool children\u2019s Implicit Inferential Reasoning in Scientific Activities

The implementation of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) at school is one of the challenges of education in the twenty-first century, especially concerning the development of critical thinking during argumentative interactions. In this paper, I refer to an interdisciplinary approach with the aim to analyze the implicit inferential reasoning emerging in argumentative discussions among children during scientific activities. The study involved 25 preschool children at a kindergarten engaged in three problem solving tasks. The first activity was to build a tunnel, the second to build a bridge—both with the use of Lego©—and the third to build an hourglass with recycled materials. The tasks were video-recorded and the discussions transcribed. The analysis implied different steps: first, I identified the argumentative structure of each exchange according to the pragma-dialectical approach; then, I found the implicit premises using the Argumentum Model of Topics; afterward, I analyzed the argumentative discussions according to a sociocultural approach. The findings show a predominance of arguments based on causal relationships and indicate how children reason regarding complex aspects of a problem, such as the negative consequences of an action, the adequacy of the available tools, and the (possible) future conditions connected to the scientific activity they are involved in. The study opens a possibility to shift from how to implement STEM activities to what children already do when engaged in scientific tasks. It also encourages the adoption of an interdisciplinary approach to investigating the complex process of argumentation in preschool children.

Un estudio de los argumentos de autoridad utilizados por los padres con sus hijos durante las comidas

Este artículo pretende examinar cómo los padres usan el argumento de autoridad para persuadir a sus hijos de que acepten reglas y prescripciones durante las comidas. Utilizando el modelo de una discusión crítica integrada con el Argumentum Model of Topics como enfoque analítico, se ha analizado un corpus de 31 argumentos de autoridad propuestos por padres. Los resultados muestran que los padres siempre se refieren a un adulto como fuente de autoridad. En su mayoría, son ellos mismos y, con menos frecuencia, un tercero, como un abuelo o un maestro de niños. A la luz de estos resultados, es razonable suponer que para los padres la referencia a sí mismos es un argumento más efectivo que la referencia a un tercero. Sin embargo, los niños son más propensos a aceptar la argumentación de sus padres cuando la autoridad es otro adulto y no uno de sus padres.

Emotions in Argumentative Narration

This paper studies emotional inferencing triggered by emotion terms using Pragma-Dialectics and the Argumentum Model of Topics. The corpus, in French, is an excerpt of a video-recorded testimony in which a middle school teacher evokes her experience of being in class the day after the Charlie Hebdo attack, thus presenting a case of argumentation in context. The analysis focuses on the argumentative structure and on the rhetorical strategies that trigger emotional inferencing. The emotional inferencing derives from a Locus of Ontological Implication, which links a situation and an emotion (and vice-versa), while the culture-bound elements tend to be part of the endoxon.

The Rhetorical and Argumentative Relevance of "Extreme Consequence" in Advertising

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.

The Analysis of Implicit Premises within Children’s Argumentative Inferences

This paper presents preliminary findings of the project [name omitted for anonymity]. This interdisciplinary project builds on Argumentation theory and developmental sociocultural psychology for the study of children’s argumentation. We reconstruct children’s inferences in adult-child and child-child dialogical interaction in conversation in different settings. We focus in particular on implicit premises using the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) for the reconstruction of the inferential configuration of arguments. Our findings reveal that sources of misunderstandings are more often than not due to misalignments of implicit premises between adults and children; these misalignments concern material premises rather than the inferential-procedural level.

Does a good argument make a good answer? Argumentative reconstruction of children's justifications in a second order false belief task

Abstract This paper proposes a novel approach to interpret the results of a classical second-order false belief task (the ice cream man task) administered to children in order to investigate their Theory of Mind. We adopted a dialogical perspective to study the adult-child discussion in this research setting. In particular, we see the adult-child conversation as an argumentative discussion in which children are asked to justify their answers to the questions asked by the researcher. We analysed the specificities of the research setting as an argumentative activity type; we reconstructed and analysed the children's answers on the basis of two models taken from Argumentation theory (the pragma-dialectical model and the Argumentum Model of Topics). Our findings show that some of the children's partially “incorrect” answers depend on the pragmatics of the conversation, the relation between explicit and implicit content, and a misunderstanding of the discussion issue. Other “incorrect” answers are actually based on correct inferences but they do not meet the researchers' expectations, because the children do not share the same material premises as the researchers. These findings invite further research on children's reasoning and on the characteristics of argumentation within a research task.

Journalist’s arguing newsmaking decisions on the basis of anticipated audience uptake

Journalists’ expectations concerning the way in which the audience will react to news strongly influence their decisions in newsmaking. This article investigates the argumentative dimension of journalists’ anticipatory inferences in newsroom editorial conferences. In order to study journalists’ reasoning processes concerning audience uptake that lead journalists to publish a certain news instead of another or to publish a news in a certain way, we will use the Pragma-Dialectical framework at the interactional level and Argumentum Model of Topics at the inferential level. Through a case study, we will investigate the anticipation of the audience interest and the anticipation of the audience persuasion, showing how editorial conferences function as places of reflection in which certain kinds of standpoints are at stake and particular aspects of the audience uptake are anticipated.

Discovering Argumentative Patterns in Energy Polylogues: A Macroscope for Argument Mining

A macroscope is proposed and tested here for the discovery of the unique argumentative footprint that characterizes how a collective (e.g., group, online community) 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.

On the production of a multimodal news item: An argumentative approach

Abstract The present paper deals with the production of a multimodal news item from an ethnographic perspective, aiming at fully understanding the role played by news values, i.e. shared criteria for news selection, in newsroom argumentation. The news item we consider is the picture news from Corriere del Ticino, the main Italian-language newspaper in Switzerland. As the Italian name fototesto says, this news item combines a verbal and a photographical component, presenting the journalists with particular challenges in its selection. To shed light on this production process, we take as a case study a picture news on eco-friendly heat distribution and the editorial conference leading to its choice, which took place on January 24, 2013. We analyze the interaction from the viewpoint of argumentation theory, combining Pragma-Dialectics (van Eemeren and Grootendorst) and the Argumentum Model of Topics (Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2009, 2010, under review), and unravel the reasons behind choices in content and form taken collaboratively by the journalists.

The argumentative and rhetorical function of multimodal metonymy

AbstractThe aim of this article is to contribute to the theoretical development of multimodal metonymy and the argumentative and rhetorical role that the trope can fulfil in multimodal advertising campaigns. A model for the analysis of multimodal tropes in page-based advertising messages is developed by drawing insights from different disciplines. This model involves the identification of the elementary and layout components of the message, the description of its multimodal structure (in terms of the visual structure and the contribution of the verbal component), the reconstruction of its meaning operation, and the reconstruction of its enthymematic structure. In particular, the meaning operation is reconstructed by the employment of Conceptual Integration Theory, which we have slightly revised in order to better account for metonymical mappings. The enthymematic structure is reconstructed following the Argumentum Model of Topics, a model of argument schemes that enables one to make explicit the contextual and the logical dimensions of arguments. Based on the tenets of the two frameworks, we claim that multimodal metonymy condenses and gives access to a complex chain of connections, which mirrors the argumentation the audience is invited to infer. This argumentation is based on causal schemes of reasoning. This claim results in the in-depth analysis of both a billboard belonging to an anti-AIDS campaign and a social campaign by Greenpeace against the use of environmental-damaging paper for toy packages by Mattel.

Do we still need an army like in the First World War? An argumentative analysis of a television debate on abolishing compulsory military service in Switzerland

In Swiss semi-direct democracy, citizens are often summoned to the polls. To vote reasonably, they need to be properly informed. The media therefore have the responsibility to provide them with arguments for and against each issue of voting. Here, we focus on argumentation in a television ‘civic debate’ about abolishing compulsory military service. To provide a unified and integrated overview of the debate dynamics, we combine the Dialogical Model of Argumentation and the Argumentum Model of Topics, which share a similar emphasis on the discursive dimension of argumentation. This analysis underlines the importance of linguistic and communicative resources and procedures, without neglecting the macro socio-political environment of the debate.

Analysing multiple addressivity in research interviews: A methodological suggestion from argumentation theory

Abstract In the literature on dialogism, a need has emerged for analytical tools enabling researchers to retrace dialogism in human interaction. These instruments necessarily encompass some kind of approach to text analysis, as the data that researchers are confronted with when studying interaction are either transcriptions of oral interactions or written texts. This paper proposes to integrate a tool from argumentation theory (the Argumentum Model of Topics) in order to contribute to the analysis of addressivity in the context of a dialogical analysis. The specific context taken into account is that of research interviews to migrant women with children. The claim is that the Argumentum Model of Topics allows reconstructing implicit premises which are taken for granted during the interaction. Understanding implicit premises means eliciting multiple levels of addressivity that can be present in one and the same discourse. It emerges that, very often, the interviewer is addressed both as a researcher and as a mother sharing some common trait (e.g. raising children in the UK) with the participants.

The Argument from Expert Opinion As Other-Oriented Reference in Disciplinary Discussions

This paper aims to investigate the types of source on which students base the arguments from expert opinion when used to convince their teacher and classmates to accept their standpoint during disciplinary discussions. Using the model of a critical discussion integrated with the Argumentum Model of Topics as analytical approach, a corpus of 66 arguments from expert opinion were analyzed. The results show that students in most cases refer to scholars and their scientific notions and theories as a source of expertise (other oriented arguments). Less frequently, students refer to themselves and their previous personal experience as a source of expertise (self-oriented argument).

The argument from expert opinion as other-oriented reference in disciplinary discussions

This paper aims to investigate the types of source on which students base the arguments from expert opinion when used to convince their teacher and classmates to accept their standpoint during disciplinary discussions. Using the model of a critical discussion integrated with the Argumentum Model of Topics as analytical approach, a corpus of 66 arguments from expert opinion were analyzed. The results show that students in most cases refer to scholars and their scientific notions and theories as source of expertise (other-oriented argument). Less frequently, students refer to themselves and their previous personal experience as source of expertise (self-oriented argument).

The argumentative relevance of pictorial and multimodal metaphor in advertising

In this article we present an exploratory investigation of pictorial and multimodal metaphors appearing in print product advertisements; the aim is to ascertain their relevance for the arguments that the ads put forth. Departing from the working hypotheses that advertising is an argumentative activity type employing pictorial and multimodal metaphors, and that these are often examples of visual argumentation, we analyze a small corpus of print product ads by employing the theoretical frameworks offered by Blending Theory and the Argumentum Model of Topics. This allows us to reconstruct the enthymematic structure of advertising arguments highlighting the correspondence between rhetorical tropes and argumentative loci.