ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Drug Advertising And Clinical Practice: Establishing Topics Of Evaluation

• by: G. Thomas Goodnight - University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA & Kara Gilbert - Monash University, Australia

1. Introduction
Preservation of patient autonomy in clinical decision-making is strongly advocated in Western models of medical practice. Ensconced in a physician’s legal and moral responsibility is a duty to ensure the patient receives objective and impartial information that will support his/her ability to make an informed choice. Yet, there is a subtle disparity between ‘presentational’ and ‘persuasional’ strategies of providing information on risks and benefits in therapeutic decision-making (Fisher 2001). The process of informed consent, while institutionally sanctioned, is subject to social and political influences (Goodnight, 2006).

Like all institutional practices, doctor-patient interactions feature bounded communicative rationality. In order to reach an informed agreement, participants in a discussion may in principle appeal to ideal norms of consensus formation. In the routines of reasonable practice, such norms are constrained by the conventions, boundaries, interests and customs of an institutionally regulated forum. In the case of medical consultation, the interests of time and resources engage provider and client in a reciprocal exchange of argumentation, but from quite different perspectives, with different risks at stake. At the ontological level, a patient has his or her health to consider. At the professional level, a doctor has a duty to do no harm, a practice to consider, as well as state of the art credentials backed by peer review and licensing. If the consultation is productive, different risks are minimized for both doctor and patient. Presumably, presumption – the right to question sufficiency of evidence and to say no – resides with the patient because his or her risks involve the less reversible outcomes of mortality. Best practices should be reviewed critically to evaluate communication norms, recognizing that such standards change over time because medical care evolves, state and private programs transform, and aspects of the human condition alter. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – A Formal Model Of Legal Proofs Standard And Burdens

• by: Thomas F. Gordon - Fraunhofer Fokus & Douglas Walton - University of Windsor

This paper presents a formal model that enables us to define five distinct types of burden of proof in legal argumentation. Four standards of proof are shown to play a vital role in defining each type of burden. These standards of proof are defined in a precise way suitable for computing in argumentation studies generally, but are based on a long tradition of their use in law. The paper presents a computational model based on these notions that represents a dialectical process that goes from initial claims where issues to be decided are set, and produces a justification for arriving at a decision for one side or the other that can withstand a critical evaluation by a particular audience. The role of the audience can be played by the respondent in some instances, or by a neutral third party audience, depending on the type of dialogue. The paper builds on previous work (Gordon, Prakken and Walton, 2007; Gordon and Walton, 2009) that has applied the Carneades model to studying burden of proof in legal argumentation. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Binary Oppositions In Media Argumentation

• by: Kira V.Goudkova & Tatyana P.Tretyakova - Saint Petersburg State University

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the study of relations between descriptive and normative argumentation models. It examines persuasive tools in a modern media text by introducing cognitive binary oppositions into the analysis. These oppositions make a certain “reasoning scheme” that is lavishly used in the modern press. The approach taken in this paper might be called political linguistics; it aggregates diverse research programs mainly connected with the critical analysis of the language of politicians (speechwriters), journalists, TV presenters as well as the study of language in the decision making process, and types of persuasion and manipulation of the public. We argue that introducing binary oppositions into the analysis follows modern trends of complex approaches to linguistic data encompassing cognitive analysis, argumentation analysis and semantics.

In our introduction we deal with more basic foundations of the case study which is to follow in our main part. These bases deal with cognitive linguistics and structural semantics. At present, cognitive linguistics has achieved certain progress in defining mental spaces as small conceptual packets showing frames and scenarios as we think and engage in discourse; these conceptual packets map onto each other in intricate ways, and provide abstract mental structures for shifting viewpoints and directing our attention to very partial and simple structures. It has become possible to disclose an elaborate web of connections helping the memory for purposes of understanding and persuasion. These mental spaces are presented as very partial assemblies containing elements structured by frames and cognitive models that are interconnected and can be modified as thought and discourse unfold. From the cognitive point of view language is the process of real time perception and production of temporal signs and sequences that present discrete units but act in functional semantics as dynamic open systems. (Tretyakova 2006, pp.275-277). This type of analysis allows identifying language units in terms of dynamic procedures. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – The Challenge Of Studying Argumentation In Context

• by: Sara Greco Morasso - University of Lugano and University of Neuchâtel

1. Introduction
Recent research has shown increasing interest in contextualised argumentation, because, as some authors remark, argumentation is always a context-bound communicative activity (van Eemeren et al. 2009). A number of signs – such as, for example, the establishment of an international doctoral program on argumentation practices in different contexts (Argupolis, www.argupolis.net) – prove the increasing interest for the study of contextualised argumentation within the community of argumentation scholars. At the same time, the importance of the argumentative perspective is also recognised in a number of other disciplines, which become more and more open to interdisciplinary cross-fertilisation (see for example Muller Mirza and Perret-Clermont 2009 about argumentation in science education and learning). We could summarise the situation as a progressive convergence of interests: the interest of argumentation theorists for the study of context and the interest for argumentation arisen in a number of contexts traditionally tackled by various other disciplinary perspectives. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Emotional Arguments: Ancient And Contemporary Views

• by: Leo Groarke - University of Windsor

1. Introduction
The prodigious development of argumentation theory over the last three decades has raised many issues that challenge some of the long held assumptions that characterize the traditional study of argument. One of these issues is the role of emotion in argument and argument analysis. While rhetoric has, with its emphasis on persuasion, always recognized that emotions play some role determining which arguments we accept and reject, a long tradition sees appeals to emotion as fallacies that violate the standards of rationality and objectivity reason and argument require.

A contemporary interest in natural language argument and the way it operates in different discourses of argument has, in many ways, challenged this view. A more receptive attitude to the emotional elements of argumentation has been encouraged by the study of rhetorical analysis, strategic maneuvering and many forms of argument (e.g., “visual arguments”) that are prevalent in day to day discussion and debate. According to many authors, fallacies associated with emotion (appeals to pity, ad bacculum, etc.) are argument schemes which are not necessarily fallacious. Most significantly, Gilbert (2007) and, following him, Carozza (2009) have proposed a radical revision of our account of argument which grants “emotional arguments” a legitimate role in argumentation. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Dutch Parliamentary Debate As Communicative Activity Type

• by: Ton van Haaften - Leiden University

1. Introduction
The debate in Dutch parliament can be characterized as a rather formal discussion.[i] Techniques of persuasion are only being used moderately. These characteristics of Dutch parliamentary debate originate from the shaping of the modern Dutch parliament during the second half of the 19^th century. Historical analyses of the origin and development of modern Dutch parliament and its culture have shown how much their 19^th century liberal founding fathers under the leadership of the much respected politician J.R. Thorbecke have aimed at a dialectical ideal while shaping the new parliament (Turpijn 2008, te Velde 2003). In their ideal parliament, the members of the Chamber would attain the ‘truth’ via worthy, free and rational debate (Turpijn 2008, p. 79). It is with this perspective in mind that the formal and informal rules for the conduct of the debate were shaped, and it has remained basically unchanged to this very day, notwithstanding the great societal and political changes that have taken place since.

At several periods in history this dominant culture with respect to Dutch parliamentary debate  has been  challenged by some left – or right – winged political parties as a whole or by some individual members of parliament; these parties or individual representatives make a substantial use of persuasive techniques, and in doing so, exasperate many Dutch members of parliament. Nowadays for example, the dominant debate culture in Dutch Parliament is challenged by the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV, Party for Freedom), a political party on the extreme right that focuses on one issue in its political program: the danger of Islamization of Dutch society. In the elections for Dutch Parliament, held on June 9^th 2010, this political party was the big winner: it gained 24 of the 150 parliamentary seats and became The Netherlands’ third political party in size. It is generally assumed that this enormous election success is a direct consequence of the way the leader of this party, Mr. Geert Wilders, operates in Dutch parliamentary debates. Mr. Wilders is not only well-known for what he says. He also draws attention with the way in which he puts his message into words. On the one hand he is criticized for using words like ‘bonkers’, ‘insane’ or ‘completely nuts’ to characterize his opponents in parliamentary debates. On the other hand, he is able to formulate his standpoints very clearly, as is for instance indicated by the fact that he won a ‘plain language award’ in 2007. Read more