Argumentation in Political Interviews

Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency

Author
Corina Andone | University of Amsterdam
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027211224 | EUR 85.00 | USD 128.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027271754 | EUR 85.00 | USD 128.00
 
Google Play logo
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.

[Argumentation in Context, 5] 2013.  viii, 147 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
“[T]his is an important piece of original research that makes a welcome contribution to the study of strategic maneuvering in institutional contexts and the (critical) study of political discourse. It is very clearly written and argued, in the lucid and methodical style characteristic of pragma-dialectical research, and contains a wealth of examples from political interviews from the British media, clearly analyzed. It is an excellent contribution to the development of pragma-dialectics as a major research programme in argumentation theory and will be of use not only to researchers working within the pragma-dialectical research programme but also, more widely, to analysts of political discourse, and particularly to researchers working in Critical Discourse Analysis.”
“[H]er work creates a model from which comparative study in deliberative democracy can benefit. Different regimes, rules of public engagement, content expectations and audiences condition the practices of deliberation. What norms can be posited as universal and which are subject to discovery as invested in national political authority and custom? Are the maneuvers of journalists across the globe more common than they are varied? Andone’s gifted inquiry extends pragma-dialectics appears as an insightful tool to address the communicative and interactive dimensions of professional and political practices.”
Cited by

Cited by 37 other publications

Al-Hindawi, Fareed Hameed & Wafaa Sahib Mehdi Mohammed
2018. Towards an Analytical Model in Critical Pragmatics. SSRN Electronic Journal DOI logo
Andone, Corina
2015. The burden of proof in dealing with political accountability. In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue [Dialogue Studies, 26],  pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Andone, Corina
2015. Pragmatic Argumentation in European Practices of Political Accountability. Argumentation 29:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Andone, Corina
2016. Delimiting the burden of proof in political interviews. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:1  pp. 74 ff. DOI logo
Andone, Corina
2017. Chapter 14. Delimiting the burden of proof in political interviews. In Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics [Argumentation in Context, 12],  pp. 255 ff. DOI logo
Andone, Corina
2022. Crisis Response Strategies in Political Interviews: A European Union Perspective. In Adversarial Political Interviewing,  pp. 193 ff. DOI logo
Bova, Antonio, Francesco Arcidiacono & Fabrice Clément
2017. Chapter 11. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10],  pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Clementson, David E.
2016. Why Do We Think Politicians Are So Evasive? Insight From Theories of Equivocation and Deception, With a Content Analysis of U.S. Presidential Debates, 1996-2012. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 35:3  pp. 247 ff. DOI logo
Dahl, John Magnus R. & A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
Demir, Yeliz
2016. Maneuvering strategically in a press conference to diminish political responsibility for a critical event. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5:2  pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Greco, Sara
Hansson, Sten
2018. Analysing opposition–government blame games: argument models and strategic maneuvering. Critical Discourse Studies 15:3  pp. 228 ff. DOI logo
Helmer, Henrike
2022. Strategy Ascriptions in Public Mediation Talks. In Action Ascription in Interaction,  pp. 160 ff. DOI logo
Hernández, Alfonso
2021. Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3  pp. 281 ff. DOI logo
Ilie, Cornelia
2017. Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10],  pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Kauffeld, Fred J. & Beth Innocenti
2018. A Normative Pragmatic Theory of Exhorting. Argumentation 32:4  pp. 463 ff. DOI logo
Kienpointner, Manfred
2017. Chapter 5. Reason and passion in political rhetoric. In Argumentation across Communities of Practice [Argumentation in Context, 10],  pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Okuda, Hiroko & Takeshi Suzuki
2018. Prime Minister Abe’s challenge to the Japanese Postwar Constitution. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7:1  pp. 18 ff. DOI logo
Pishwa, Hanna
2015. Information Source as Persuasive Power in Political Interviews: the Case of Obama. In The Exercise of Power in Communication,  pp. 130 ff. DOI logo
Popa, Eugen
2013. Review of Suzuki, Kato, Kubota & Murai (2012): Proceedings of the 4th Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2:3  pp. 346 ff. DOI logo
Reijven, Menno H.
2021. The co-construction of campaign argumentation on U.S.A. late-night talk shows. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3  pp. 397 ff. DOI logo
Renardel de Lavalette, Kiki Y., Corina Andone & Gerard J. Steen
2022. The use of clarificatory metaphors in argumentative discourse in British Public Bill Committee debates. Text & Talk 42:5  pp. 735 ff. DOI logo
Rocci, Andrea & Chiara Pollaroli
2018. Introduction: Multimodality in argumentation . Semiotica 2018:220  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Svačinová, Iva
2021. Demosthenes’ strategic maneuvering in theFirst Olynthiac. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:3  pp. 315 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2015. From Ideal Model of Critical Discussion to Situated Argumentative Discourse: The Step-by-Step Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse [Argumentation Library, 27],  pp. 127 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2015. Strategic Maneuvering. In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction,  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2016. Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation 30:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2017. Chapter 2. Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragma-dialectical perspective. In Prototypical Argumentative Patterns [Argumentation in Context, 11],  pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2018. Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Argumentative Practices. In Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective [Argumentation Library, 33],  pp. 129 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2013. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory,  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. M. Wagemans
2014. The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. In Handbook of Argumentation Theory,  pp. 517 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Peng
2019. Confrontational Maneuvering by Dissociation in Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at the Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Argumentation 33:1  pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 may 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.

Subjects

Communication Studies

Communication Studies

Philosophy

Philosophy

Main BIC Subject

CFG: Semantics, Pragmatics, Discourse Analysis

Main BISAC Subject

LAN000000: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2013013546 | Marc record