In:Argumentation across Communities of Practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives
Edited by Cornelia Ilie and Giuliana Garzone
[Argumentation in Context 10] 2017
► pp. 229–258
Chapter 10Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type
Published online: 2 November 2017
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.11dem
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.10.11dem
Abstract
Television debates are a tool of public deliberation through which ordinary citizens can get involved in deliberative democracy. They are argumentative events in which standpoints about a controversial issue are raised, defended, and criticized. By adopting the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2005; van Eemeren, 2010), this paper aims to characterize a multi-participant TV debate (MPTD) as an argumentative activity type. Argumentative characterization of an MPTD involves, first of all, providing a detailed description of the institutional constraints imposed on the argumentative practices in this activity type, and next, distinguishing in MPTD the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion. For illustration, the paper draws its examples from Siyaset Meydanı, an MPTD that had a long broadcasting history in Turkey. As a result of the characterization achieved in this paper, it is concluded that an MPTD is a moderately-conventionalized deliberative activity type preconditioned by both implicit and explicit norms governing the conduct of argumentation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Argumentative activity types in pragma-dialectics and MPTD as an argumentative activity type
- 2.1Initial situation
- 2.2Starting points
- 2.2.1Procedural starting points
- 2.2.2Material starting points
- 2.3Argumentative means
- 2.4Possible outcome
- 3.Conclusion
Acknowledgements Notes References
References (27)
Andone, C. (2010). Maneuvering Strategically in a Political Interview: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to an Accusation of Inconsistency. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Benoit, W. L., Henson, J. R., & Sudbrock, L. A. (2011). A functional analysis of 2008 American presidential primary debates. Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy, 48, 97–110.
Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in internet discussions about public. Information Polity, 7, 3–20.
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1982). The speech act of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1–24.
(1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris Publications.
(1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1997). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves. In J. Klumpp (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp.51–56). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
(2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
(2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.). The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84).
Emmertsen, S. (2007). Interviewers’ challenging questions in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 570–591.
Fracchiolla, B. (2011). Politeness as a strategy of attack in a gendered political debate – The Royal Sarkozy debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2480–2488.
Guillot, M. N. (2008). Freedoms and constraints in semi-institutional television discussions: The case of mixed format panel discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 179–204.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (W. Rehg, transl.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1992.)
Ilie, C. (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 31 (8), 975–999.
Lawrence, J. (2012). Why debate moderators matter. National Journal, (Oct. 11, 2012). Retrieved from: [URL]
Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet Political Discussion Forums as an Argumentative Activity Type. Amsterdam: SicSat.
Luginbühl, M. (2007). Conversational violence in political TV debates: Forms and functions. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1371–1387.
Mondada, L. (2013). Embodied and spatial resources for turn-taking in institutional multi-party interactions: Participatory democracy debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 46(1), 39–68.
Proctor, K., & I-Wen Su, L. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse – American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43 (13), 3251–3266.
RTUK- The Law No. 6112 on the Establishment of Radio and Television Enterprises and Their Media Services. Retrieved from: [URL] on January 26, 2012.