ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Constituting The “Good Patient” – The Effect Of “Clustered Argumentation” In Dutch Personal Healthcare Budget Policy

• by: Wouter Mensink & Frans A. J. Birrer - Leiden University

1. Introduction[i]
Public policy proposals for radical transformations often draw on a large number of premises. In this paper, we show that argumentation is complicated by what we call a “cluster of arguments”, of which the parts are not evaluated independently, but seem to be either accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole. Our case study examines one such cluster. The case concerns the introduction of a personal budget for healthcare in the Netherlands. This implies that, for particular types of treatments, citizens can opt for receiving a budget that is allocated for their case directly to their bank accounts, rather than receiving care “in kind”. Our analysis is based on a study of the key policy reports that constitute this discussion, as well as on a confrontation with the academic literature.

The focus of our analysis is on how the personal budget policy affects how the patient is constituted as a healthcare actor. The patient seems to be attributed a new role. We argue that discussions on this new role in fact aim to constitute a new subject of healthcare, a “good patient”, to use a term that was introduced by the Dutch Public Health Council (RVZ 2007). Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Construction Types And Argumentative Functions Of Possibility Modals: Evidence From Italian

• by: Johanna Miecznikowski - Università della Svizzera Italiana (Lugano)

1. Introduction
Modality has to do with communicating about possibilities rather than about the actual world, with construing alternative scenarios and with assessing the relationships between scenarios. This mode of communication has obvious affinities with argumentation, a communicative activity in which speakers compare and evaluate alternative views, exploring their relationships with beliefs and known facts. That is why linguistic expressions happen to have both modal and argumentative functions, as shows the example of negation markers, used to mark states of affairs as non-real, but also to disagree (cf. among others Anscombre & Ducrot 1983). In other words, modal expressions – among which negation markers, mood, conditional constructions and modal verbs as well as other expressions of possibility and necessity – happen to function as “argumentative indicators” (cf. Snoeck Henkemans 1997, van Eemeren et al. 2007).

According to the pragmatic-dialectical approach to argumentative indicators, the range of possible argumentative functions of linguistic expressions covers the content level, the level of discourse relations, the level of speech act types and illocutionary force, as well as the discursive-sequential level of signaling particular argumentative moves or discussion stages. Within this framework, considerable attention has been paid to pragmatic and dialogical aspects, i.e. to indicators that are useful to reconstruct stages and moves in a critical discussion (cf. also, among others, Tseronis 2009). As to modal expressions, they have been analyzed first and foremost as markers of the degree of commitment to a standpoint (Snoeck Henkemans 1997, p. 108-117). Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – “Crisis” And Argument By Definition In The Modern American Presidency

• by: Maureen C. Minielli - Kingsborough Community College, City University of New York

Definitional argumentation theory remains a subject of significant study, primarily through the examination of argument about definition (Schiappa, 1993) and argument from definition (Schiappa, McGee, 1999). Although Zarefsky (1997) has briefly surveyed argument by definition, attention to this perspective remains anorexic. This essay begins to rectify that oversight by illuminating argument by definition through an analysis of modern presidential crisis rhetoric. This essay posits that argument from definition has as its locus the definition itself but argument by definition resituates that locus to the definition’s user or creator. This essay first differentiates and clarifies argument by definition from argument from definition before examining five areas of “concerns” about argument by definition by argumentation scholars through the lens of the modern American presidency and the word crisis. This essay suggests that words like crisis contain core elements germane to any crisis situation but are flexible and modifiable depending on the user, the user’s definition, and the crisis event. It also identifies several issues arising of out presidential definitional usage, including time, ethos, intent, strategies and audience as well as the need for additional crisis rhetoric essays examined from an argumentative perspective. The essay concludes with a call for additional studies encompassing several crises within a specific presidency as well as more attention devoted to the notion of time. In addition, I suggest that scholars should incorporate more primary research into their analyses, an approach fully embraced by other branches of academe. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – The Reasonableness Of Responding To Criticism With Accusations Of Inconsistency

• by: Dima Mohammed - University of Amsterdam & University of Lugano

1. Introduction
Responding with accusations of inconsistency to criticism is an interesting way of strategic manoeuvring in public political confrontations. In this way of manoeuvring, a politician who is confronted with a critical point of view replies that the criticism advanced is inconsistent with another position of the critic. The accusation of inconsistency is usually intended to have the criticism retracted, as a way of eliminating the alleged inconsistency, sparing the politician the difficulty of refuting the criticism. On the one hand, one may think that pointing out an inconsistency in the position of an arguer and urging him to eliminate it is a perfectly legitimate response. After all, arguers should not assume mutually inconsistent positions simultaneously. On the other hand, however, pointing out that the criticism advanced is inconsistent with another position of the critic is often used by politicians as a way to silence their critics.

In this paper I shall investigate the reasonableness of the kinds of responses in which an arguer replies to critical points of view by means of accusations of inconsistency. I use the theory of strategic manoeuvring (van Eemeren, 2010; van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002b, 2007) to analyse the responses as instances of a particular way of confrontational strategic manoeuvring; and I attempt to formulate conditions for their dialectical soundness. In line with van Eemeren and Houtlosser, I consider an instance of strategic manoeuvring to be reasonable as long as the critical testing procedure is not hindered by the accuser’s attempt to direct the discussion towards a favourable outcome. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Argumentative Insights For The Analysis Of Direct-To-Consumer Advertising

• by: Dima Mohammed & Peter Schulz - University of Lugano

1. Introduction
Among the scholars interested in direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), there is more and more interest in examining argumentation in this particular type of ads. On the one hand, the argumentative nature of direct-to-consumer advertising can hardly be overlooked,[i] but on the other hand, this argumentative nature is also often the main source of criticism that the opponents of DTCA advance. Critics often point out that direct-to-consumer advertising, as the name suggests, is a promotional activity that aims at increasing the sales of the medicine advertised (Chandra & Holt, 1999; Gilbody, Wilson & Watt, 2005; Mintzes, 1998; Wolfe, 2002), rather than a source of information that raises the health literacy of the public and allows patients to be more involved in their healthcare, as DTCA supporters claim (Auton, 2004, 2007; Calfee, 2002; Jones & Garlick, 2003). In a previous paper (Mohammed & Schulz, 2010), we have argued that the argumentative nature of DTCA is not necessarily what diminishes its educational potential. Ideally, it is possible for direct-to-consumer advertising to fulfil both educational and promotional purposes.

Reasonable argumentation can reconcile the promotional and educational aims of direct-to-consumer advertising. A reasonable defence of this claim will react to the doubt of patients as well as to the competing claims and arguments of other pharmaceutical companies. Such a defence will provide assistance for the patients in making well-informed decisions and if successful will also convince them to ask their doctors to prescribe medicine x for them. The latter is the heart of pharmaceuticals’ promotional interest. However, our previous analysis of strategic manoeuvring in DTC ads suggests that pharmaceutical companies are more interested in getting the claim that promotes their medicine accepted by an audience of consumers rather than by an audience of patients who would like to be more involved in their health care. That is mainly reflected by the choice of relying significantly on arguments that promote the medicine on the basis of qualities that relate to its non-medical attributes (in our earlier study, we have referred to such arguments, which address the non-medical attributes of a medicine, such as the ease of use of a medicine, its cost benefits, and social-psychological enhancements attributes … etc, as convenience appeals). Such a choice reflects an interest in convincing a potential consumer who would certainly care about what is convenient, rather than convincing an active patient who is more concerned with the effectiveness and safety of his treatment option. Even though the findings of our analysis are in line with a significant part of the criticism of the practice of direct-to-consumer advertising, a test of the generalisability of such findings seems to be necessary. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Strategic Maneuvering With The Technique Of Dissociation In International Mediation

• by: Daniela Muraru - “Dunărea de Jos” University of Galaţi

1. Introduction
This paper [i] is an illustration of the way in which dissociation becomes a tool of the mediator’s strategic maneuvering, by means of which the disputants’ disagreement space is minimized, decision-making being thus facilitated. The mediator’s argumentative behavior will be explored, investigating the way in which he succeeds in “maintaining a delicate balance” (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 2002) between the dialectical and the rhetorical aims in employing the argumentative technique of dissociation.

As established by van Rees (2006, 2009a), dissociation implies the use of two speech acts – definition and distinction. The analysis conducted in this paper shows the way in which dissociation is employed in the mediated type of discourse with the purpose of defining (and re-defining) ‘peace’ and the conditions of a peace agreement, ‘security’ or other important issues regarding the state of war, and of making a distinction, respectively, between the atrocities of war and the idea of peace. The aim is to strategically pursue both the rhetorical aspects – to achieve rhetorical effectiveness, in the sense of dissociation as bringing about a change in the starting point of the other party, and the dialectical ones – as all the parties want to resolve the conflict reasonably. Consequently, the discussion of the issues of peace and security perfectly shapes the relationship between dissociation and the speech acts of defining and distinguishing and proves how strategic maneuvering functions in real-life argumentation (cf. Muraru 2008c). Read more