Cover not available

In:Persuasion in Specialized Discourse: A multidisciplinary perspective
Edited by Chiara Degano, Dora Renna and Francesca Santulli
[Argumentation in Context 22] 2024
► pp. 46–70

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
Establishing starting points in Editorials

An analysis of the Brexit debate in the UK

 | University of Roma Tre
Published online: 25 October 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.22.02deg
Abstract
If argumentation has to have a chance of success in solving a difference of opinion, there must be a common ground between the participants, i.e. one or more objects of agreement between the parties, which can be exploited argumentatively. This chapter focuses on how starting points are established in editorials and comments, taking as a case study a corpus of UK newspaper articles on populism in the context of the 2016 referendum on Brexit.
The results suggest that starting points are discursively constructed either with a bona-fide intent of signalling that the receiver should accept a proposition as a starting point, or the non-bona fide purpose of mocking those who would subscribe to a given proposition. In either case, the ratified addressee typically belongs to the writer’s ‘party’, thus confirming editorials as a genre with a strong epideictic component.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2. Theoretical frame
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Questions as indicators of a proposal to accept a proposition as a starting point
      • 4.1.1 Rhetorical questions with ‘then’
      • 4.1.2Rhetorical questions with tag questions
    • 4.2Expressions suggesting that a starting point has been accepted
    • 4.4Accepting starting points with restrictions
  • 5.Starting points and the intended audience in editorials
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (24)
References
Adler, J. E. (1996). Charity, interpretation, fallacy. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 29(4), 329–343.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bigi S., & Greco Morasso S. (2012). Keywords, Frames and the Reconstruction of Material Starting Points in Argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 44, 1135–1149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction (pp. 56–310). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calogero, G. (1951). Logo e dialogo; saggio sullo spirito critico e sulla libertà di coscienza. Comunità.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degano, C. (2007). Presupposition and Dissociation in Discourse: A Corpus Study. Argumentation, 21, 361–378. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Populism and the Press: Contracting and Expanding (Dis)agreement Space in UK Editorials on Brexit. In Garzone, G. /Logaldo, M. / Santulli, F. (Eds.) Investigating Conflict Discourse in the Periodical Press (pp. 33–50). Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degano, C., & Sicurella, F. (2019). A dialogue on populism? A study of intellectual discourse about populism in the Brexit debate in Italy and the UK. In J. Zienkowski, & R. Breeze (Eds.), Imagining the peoples of Europe: Populist discourses across the political spectrum (pp. 43–71). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2012). Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees? Argumentation, 26, 99–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gellis, M. (1999). Sermons of corporate identity: argument in two corporate annual reports. OSSA Conference Archive 18. [URL]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1987). A new approach to charity. In Problems in argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 133–158). Foris. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts, (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2012). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32(4), 403–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Indiana: University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Raskin, V. (1985). Semantic Mechanisms of Humor. D. Reidel.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sala, M. (2012). Differently Amusing. Mechanisms, Types and Modes of Humour. ECIG – Edizioni Culturali Internazionali Genova.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair J., (1988). Mirror for a text. The Journal of English and Foreign Languages, 1, 15–44.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevens, K. (2021) Charity for moral reasons? – A defense of the principle of charity in argumentation, Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(2), 67–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2006). Strategic manoeuvring: a synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation, 20, 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue