Cover not available
Part of
Multimodal Argumentation and Rhetoric in Media Genres
Edited by Assimakis Tseronis and Charles Forceville
[Argumentation in Context 14] 2017
► pp. 239–262

Chapter 9
Embodied argumentation in public debates

The role of gestures in the segmentation of argumentative moves

This chapter examines argumentative talk-in-interaction in video-recorded public debates held in Switzerland, during which all the participants were temporally and spatially co-present. It focuses on the issue of segmenting talk into argumentative moves, by looking at the way gestures combine with the verbal mode to enhance and display the different steps of the ongoing argumentation (e.g. when the speaker moves from one argument to another, or from an argument to the conclusion). In other words, while the embodied dimension of argumentation in talk-in-interaction remains largely unexplored, the chapter provides empirical evidence for the way argumentation is multimodally produced and processed in context. Three specific gestures are considered: gestures claiming the floor, gestures pointing to a participant, and metaphoric grasping gestures. The chapter concludes with suggestions for further lines of research.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical framework
    • 2.1A language-oriented analysis of argumentation
    • 2.2The multimodal analysis of talk-in-interaction
  • 3.The public debate as a genre
  • 4.The segmentation of talk-in-interaction
    • 4.1Conversation Analysis and the “turn-taking machinery”
    • 4.2The challenge of long multi-unit turns
    • 4.3Pointing gestures and turn segmentation
  • 5.The multimodal segmentation of argumentation in talk-in-interaction
    • 5.1Gestures claiming the floor
    • 5.2Gestures pointing to a participant
    • 5.3Metaphoric grasping gestures
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Transcript conventions
  • References
Published online: 20 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.14.10jac
References (91)
References
Amossy, R. (2014). 2008. ‘Argumentation et Analyse du discours: Perspectives théoriques et découpages disciplinaires.’ Argumentation et Analyse du Discours [online], 1, selected paragraphs 1–18. In J. Angermuller, D. Maingueneau, & R. Wodak (Eds.), The discourse studies reader: Main currents in theory and analysis (pp. 298–304). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(2010). La présentation de soi: Ethos et identité verbale. Paris: PUF. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angenot, M. (2008). Dialogues de sourds: Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
Aristotle. (trans. 1954). Rhetoric. W. R. Roberts (Trans.). New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1984). Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 370–409). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berrendonner, A. (1981). Éléments de pragmatique linguistique. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Bovet, A. (2009). Configuring a television debate: Categorisation, questions and answers. In R. Fitzgerald, & W. Housley (Eds.), Media, policy and interaction (pp. 27–48). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Bovet, A., & Malbois, F. (2011). (En)Jeux du cadre de participation dans la discussion publique médiatisée. In M. Burger, J. Jacquin, & R. Micheli (Eds.), La parole politique en confrontation dans les médias (pp. 51–68). Bruxelles: De Boeck Université.Google Scholar
Brändle, T. (2015). Comment les indemnités influent-elles sur la discipline et la sélection des politiciens? La Vie économique, 5, 23–27.Google Scholar
Bronckart, J. -P. (1997). Activité langagière, textes et discours: Pour un interactionisme socio-discursif. Lausanne/Paris: Delachaux et Niestlé.Google Scholar
Burger, M. (2006). The discursive construction of the public and the private spheres in media debates: The case of television talk shows. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 19, 45–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calbris, G. (2003). L’expression gestuelle de la pensée d’un homme politique. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
(2011). Elements of meaning in gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charaudeau, P. (2005). Les médias et l’information. L’impossible transparence du discours. Bruxelles: De Boeck/INA.Google Scholar
Christin, T., Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2002). Interests and information in referendum voting: An analysis of Swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 759–776. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Metaphor and gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Constantin de Chanay, H., & Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2007). 100 minutes pour convaincre: l’éthos en action de Nicolas Sarkozy. In M. Broth & al. (Eds.), Le français parlé des médias (pp. 309–329). Stockholm: Acta Universitatis Stokholmiensis.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (Ed.). (2013). Conversation analytic studies of multimodal interaction . Special issue Journal of Pragmatics, 46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doury, M. (1997). Le débat immobile. L’argumentation dans le débat médiatique sur les parasciences. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
(2004). La position du chercheur en argumentation. Semen, 17, 149–163.Google Scholar
(2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation, 26, 99–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O. (1984). Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2004). On linear segmentation and combinatorics in co-speech gesture: A symmetry-dominance construction in Lao fish trap descriptions. Semiotica, 149, 57–123.Google Scholar
Ford, C. E., & Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational, and pragmatic resources for the projection of turn completion. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar (pp. 135–184). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Gelang, M., & Kjeldsen, J. E. (2011). Nonverbal communication as argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, June 29 – July 2, 2010 (pp. 567–576). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. (2008). Metaphor and gesture. Some implications for psychology. In A. Cienki, & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (pp. 291–301). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1984). Notes on story structure and the organization of participation. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 225–246). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Govier, T. (2010). A practical study of argument (7th ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. (1992). Contextualization and understanding. In A. Duranti, & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27, 141–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heritage, J., & Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 110–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (Eds.). (1997). Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis. Washington DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hutchby, I. (1997). Building alignments in public debate: A case study from British TV. Text, 17, 161–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jacquin, J. (2013). La pré-configuration des débats publics: Apports d’une approche multimodale et longitudinale des dispositifs de catégorisation. Bulletin Suisse de Linguistique Appliquée, 98, 83–104.Google Scholar
(2014). Débattre. L’argumentation et l’identité au coeur d’une pratique verbale. Bruxelles: De Boeck Duculot.Google Scholar
(2015a). Multimodal counter-argumentation in the workplace: The contribution of gesture and gaze to the expression of disagreement. In G. Ferré, & M. Tutton (Eds.), GESPIN 4 Proceedings (pp. 155–160). Nantes: Université de Nantes.Google Scholar
(2015b). S’opposer à autrui en situation de co-présence: La multimodalité de la désignation contre-argumentative. Semen, 39, 19–38.Google Scholar
Jacquin, J., & Micheli, R. (2012). Entre texte et interaction: Propositions méthodologiques pour une approche discursive de l’argumentation en sciences du langage. In F. Neveu, V. Muni Toke, P. Blumenthal, T. Klingler, P. Ligas, S. Prévost, & S. Teston-Bonnard (Eds.), Actes du CMLF 2012 – 3ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (pp. 599–611). Lyon: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
(2013). Dire et montrer qui on est et ce que l’on ressent : Une étude des modes de sémiotisation de l’identité et de l’émotion. In H. Constantin de Chanay, M. Colas-Blaise, & O. Le Guern (Eds.), Dire / Montrer. Au coeur du sens (pp. 67–92). Chambéry: Université de Savoie.Google Scholar
Kallmeyer, W., & Schütze, F. (1977). Zur Konstitution von Kommunikationsschemata der Sachverhaltsdarstellung. In D. Wegner (Ed.), Gesprächsanalysen (pp. 159–274). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (Ed.). (2004). Polylogue . Special issue Journal of Pragmatics, 36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koutsombogera, M., & Papageorgiou, H. (2013). Multimodal indicators of persuasion in political interviews. In I. Poggi, F. D’Errico, L. Vincze, & A. Vinciarelli (Eds.), Multimodal communication in political speech. Shaping minds and social action (pp. 16–29). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M., & Mohammed, D. (Eds.). (2015). Argumentation in political deliberation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D., & Levy, E. T. (1993). Cohesion and gesture. Discourse Processes, 16, 363–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Micheli, R. (2010). L’émotion argumentée. L’abolition de la peine de mort dans le débat parlementaire français. Paris: Le Cerf.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2007a). L’interprétation online par les co-participants de la structuration du tour in fieri en TCUs: évidences multimodales. TRANEL, 47, 7–38.Google Scholar
(2007b). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies, 9, 194–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46, 39–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). The local constitution of multimodal resources for social interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 65, 137–156. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
(2013). Agonistics. Thinking the world politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S. H., McNeill, D., & Tessendorf, S. (Eds.). (2013). Body – Language – Communication. An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction [Vol.1]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Navarretta, C., & Paggio, P. (2013). Multimodal behaviour and interlocutor identification in political debates. In I. Poggi, F. D’Errico, L. Vincze, & A. Vinciarelli (Eds.), Multimodal communication in political speech. Shaping minds and social action (pp. 99–112). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior / Part 1. Glendale: Summer Institute of linguistics.Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1990). Essais sur l’argumentation: Introduction à l’étude linguistique de la parole argumentative. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
(1996a). L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
(1996b). Le trilogue argumentatif. Présentation de modèle, analyse de cas. Langue Française, 112, 9–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). L’argumentation : Histoire, théories et perspectives. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Poggi, I. (this volume). The “seeds” of charisma: Multimodal rhetoric of Mussolini’s discourse.
Poggi, I., D’Errico, F., Vincze, L., & Vinciarelli, A. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodal communication in political speech. Shaping minds and social action. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poggi, I., & Vincze, L. (2009). Gesture, gaze and persuasive strategies in political discourse. In M. Kipp, J. -C. Martin, P. Paggio, & D. Heylen (Eds.), Multimodal corpora. From models of natural interaction to systems and applications (pp. 73–92). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A., & Heritage, J. (2013). Preference. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 211–228). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308–329). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sacks, H. (1972). On the analyzability of stories by children. In J. J. Gumperz, & D. Hymes (Eds.), The ethnography of communication (pp. 325–345). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh huh’ and other things that come between sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 71–93). Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
(2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis / Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selting, M. (2000). The construction of units in conversational talk. Language in Society, 29, 477–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2005). Multimodal interaction . Special issue Semiotica, 156.Google Scholar
(Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2008). Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41, 154–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., & LeBaron, C. (Eds.). (2011). Embodied interaction: Language and body in the material world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Streeck, J., & Hartge, U. (1992). Previews: Gestures at the transition place. In P. Auer, & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 135–157). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traverso, V. (2005). Cristallisation des désaccords et mise en place de négociations dans l’interaction: Des variations situationnelles. In M. Grosjean, & L. Mondada (Eds.), La négociation au travail (pp. 43–69). Lyon: PUL.Google Scholar
Turbide, O. (2009). La performance médiatique des chefs politiques lors de la campagne électorale de 2003 au Québec. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Laval, Québec.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rees, M. A. (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 165–199). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Vincze, L. (2010). La persuasione nelle parole e nel corpo. Comunicazione multimodale e argomentazione ragionevole e fallace nel discorso politico e nel linguaggio quotidiano. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Università di Pisa, Pisa.Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2008). Arguing from definition to verbal classification: The case of redefining ‘planet’ to exclude Pluto. Informal Logic, 28, 129–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Z’graggen, H., & Linder, W. (2004). Professionalisierung der Parlaments im internationalen Vergleich. Studie im Auftrag der Parlamentsdienste der Schweizerischen Bundesversammlung. Berne: Institut für Politikwissenschaft. +++ Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Schönfelder, Nora
2024. Multimodal repetitions in children’s co-construction of arguments. European Journal of Psychology of Education 39:3 ► pp. 1759 ff. DOI logo
Jacquin, Jérôme, Ana Claudia Keck, Clotilde Robin, Sabrina Roh, F. Neveu, S. Prévost, A. Steuckardt, G. Bergounioux & B. Hamma
2022. Les verbes d’apparence dans le français-en-interaction. Formes, fonctions et distributions desembler, paraître, avoir l’air, avoir l’impressionetdonner l’impressiondans un corpus de débats politiques et de réunions d’entreprise. SHS Web of Conferences 138 ► pp. 01012 ff. DOI logo
Heller, Vivien
2021. Embodied Displays of “Doing Thinking.” Epistemic and Interactive Functions of Thinking Displays in Children's Argumentative Activities. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Wilson, Anna
2020. It’s Time to Do News Again. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68:4 ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
Tseronis, Assimakis
2018. Multimodal argumentation: Beyond the verbal/visual divide. Semiotica 2018:220 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.