ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Contemporary Trends: Between Public Art And Guerrilla Advertising

• by: Annalisa Cattani - University of Trieste, Academy of Fine Arts Ravenna

One of the most discussed areas in Contemporary Art is Public Art. It has existed as a distinctive trend since the early Seventies. Born as a form of guerrilla art that tried to invade non-institutional spaces through performing actions, the term refers today to works of art in any media that have been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all. Advertising shows something similar in so-called guerrilla advertising, which avoids the institutional displays in favour of unexpected happenings and perturbant installations, which are not immediately recognizable as commercials. The aim of this paper is to articulate and compare the two terms in order to define them in a dialectical, non-dogmatic way, underlining their argumentative development. This shows on one hand the passage from the work of art as an aesthetical object to contemplate inside a museum to a dialectical event developed as performances, installations and happenings that transform the public space, creating a gap into normal life, that gives space to a new unexpected point of view on our everyday reality. On the other hand advertising using similar strategies starts using new unexpected spaces like zebra crossing, public toilets, underground floor, just to recall some examples. not only to persuade the consumers, but also to entertain them through a more and more interactive setting. Moreover, we’ll try to answer following question: Does guerrilla advertising put into question contemporary art’s creative power? Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Strategic Maneuvering And Appellate Argumentation

• by: Janice Schuetz - Universities of New Mexico

 Strategic maneuvering can account for the complexities of appellate argumentation in the U.S. This specialized type of reasoning is distinct from the activity type of adjudication identified in strategic maneuvering, a theory that explains the interplay between rhetorical and dialectical features of many types of argumentation. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2009) describe strategic maneuvering as a way of reconciling how arguers pursue “rhetorical aims of effectiveness” at the same time they retain “dialectical standards of reasonableness” (p. 5). My goal to extend strategic maneuvering theory and then apply it to the appellate argumentation in the majority and dissenting opinion in Boumediene v. Bush (2008, 553 U.S. 723). To do so, the essay explains strategic maneuvering in appellate argumentation, describes the Boumediene case, emphasizes how rhetorical features permeate the dialectical processes of appellate argumentation, and gives examples of the argumentation of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts in this case.

1. Strategic maneuvering in appellate argumentation
Strategic maneuvering consists of explanations of how arguers reason in different activity types by selecting topical potential, framing arguments for particular audiences, and utilizing rhetorical tactics to influence these audiences. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002, 2006, 2009) identify four different activity types–adjudication, mediation, negotiation and public debate. Then they distinguish each activity type according to stages of critical discussion: confrontation, opening, argumentation and conclusion. The type closest to appellate argumentation is adjudication, an activity in which a legal dispute takes place in a specific jurisdiction during the confrontation stage; arguers construct arguments according to the rules of a context in the opening stage; arguers interpret and offer concessions about facts and evidence in the argumentation stage; and a third party adjudicator settles the dispute in the concluding stage (pp. 7-10).

Appellate argumentation has some similarity with adjudication (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2009) because this type of argumentation includes a decision about a legal dispute from third party adjudicators. However, appellate argumentation differs significantly from adjudication because it emanates from and is reconstituted in multiple discourses, does not follow defined phases of critical discussion, and incorporates the reasoning of multiple arguers over time about the meaning of a disputed legal principle. For example, Boumediene evolved from other appeals of Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) prisoners who claimed their legal rights had been violated when the U.S. military took them in custody following September 11, 2001. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – The Rationality Of Rhetoric: How To Cope With Human Limitations

• by: Jan Henning Schulze - University of Bamberg

The Problem: Obeying rules of pragma-dialectical model in real life is unreasonable
Within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004) discussants try to resolve a difference of opinion in a maximally rational way [i]. These rational agents are willing to engage in long-lasting and most complex discussions and sub-discussions when assessing the plausibility of standpoints. Other needs have to stand aside. In order to account for rhetorical moves, the concept of strategic manoeuvring has been added to the pragma-dialectical model (van Eemeren & Houtlosser 1999, 2006; van Eemeren 2010), with rational agents aiming for rhetorical effectiveness while still maintaining dialectical standards of reasonableness. However, the extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory does not account for systematic interaction between rhetoric and dialectics. Rhetoric is a supplement that may be taken into account, a non-rational appendix to rational argumentation that has to subordinate to the demands of the dialectical rules (cf. a similar critique by Hohmann 2000).

A specific problem arising from the idealizations of the pragma-dialectical model is that it cannot be implemented in real life. As pointed out by van Eemeren (2010, p. 4), “the ideal of a critical discussion is by definition not a description of any kind of reality but sets a theoretical standard that can be used for heuristic, analytic and evaluative purposes”. The model establishes normative standards of reasonableness for criticizing arguments, but it does not provide rules for constructing rationally justified arguments in practice. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Rhetoric And Argumentation In Advertising: TV Campaign “Let’s Live Like Galician”

• by: Francesco Screti - Universidade da Coruña Alfonso Martín Jiménez - Universidad de Valladolid

1. Introduction
The aim of this paper [i] is to analyze the persuasive effectiveness of the video Vivamos como Galegos [Let’s live like Galician] and to underlie its three main features: 1) indirectness; 2) emotiveness; 3) multimodality.
Galicia is one of the 18 Spanish administrative regions. The local language is Galician (a variety of Portuguese), which is spoken, not without some complexity, together with Spanish. A very strong feeling of local identity is common within the inhabitants of this country. This feeling has become a real nationalist stance, which has also institutional expression in political parties.
In 2007 a  Galician local company called GADISA (Gallega Distribuidora de Alimentos, i.e. Galician Food Supplier) started a campaign in order to increase its sells in its supermarket chain called GADIS. The commercial reach of the campaign is Galicia itself. The campaign is aimed at enhancing GADIS market against its main competitors, which are all foreigners: Carrefour, Alcampo, and Día (France), Lidl (Germany), Eroski (Basque Country, Spain), Mercadona (Valencian Community, Spain).
The campaign was designed by the advertising company BAPConde and utilized various forms of media (TV, radio, posters, web, etc.). The campaign started with the video we treat here. All the videos or advertisements feature the same concept: praising the Galician way of life, trying to reverse a previous feeling of inferiority, and transforming this inferiority into pride or in feeling of superiority for being Galician. We chose to deal with the video Vivamos como Galegos, because it was the original, it was the first broadcasted on television, and it was by far the most popular of the series – people frequently use expressions employed in the commercial, or they consciously stress behaviors displayed in the video, or their mobile phone tone is the video’s soundtrack. The video also had commercial success: as states Miguel Conde, President and Art Director of BAPConde, thanks to this video, the selling volume of GADIS increased 4.7%. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Strategic Manoeuvring With Direct Evidential Strategies

• by: Gabriela Scripnic - “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati, Romania

1. Introduction
In this paper[i] , the linguistic expressions pointing to a sensorial type of information source are taken into account within the framework provided by the argumentation theories of pragma-dialectics in order to highlight the argumentative values that these expressions acquire in a particular context. The paper aims at confirming the previously mentioned hypothesis (Gata 2007) according to which evidential strategies do not serve only to indicate the information source, but they are endowed with argumentative value. In this context, they are approached in terms of presentational devices meant to sustain a standpoint by putting forward hardly refutable evidence.
The general framework of this study is provided on the one hand by traditional and recent studies in the field of evidentiality theory (Chafe 1986; Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 33, March 2001; Aikhenvald 2003; Gata 2007, 2009(1)) and on the other hand by the Argumentation Theory, developed by van Eemeren & Grootendorst in the 1980’s and enriched later on due to the contributions of Houtlosser and Snoeck Henkemans, namely by means of the concept of strategic manoeuvring.
The first part of the paper aims at providing a clear cut distinction between several evidential strategies. The focus is placed on the verbs of visual and auditory perceptions (see, hear) which, according to the context, pertain to both types of evidentiality, namely direct vs indirect evidentiality. The second part approaches direct evidential strategies within argumentative discourses in the attempt to identify the types of strategic manoeuvring that stand out in the stages of the resolution process. The analysis is performed on several excerpts of discourse[ii] taken from the Internet in which the authors attempt to convince the readers of the truthfulness of a particular standpoint. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2010 – Belief, Rationality And The “Jurisdiction Of Argumentation”

• by: Paul L. Simard Smith - Philosophy, University of Waterloo

1. Introduction
A prevalent and sensible pre-theoretic intuition about the relationship between argumentation and belief is that argumentations are the sorts of things that ought to impact our beliefs about the issues over which we argue [i]. For example, we generally think that, if an agent concedes to a standpoint (or to a challenge to their standpoint) as a result of an argumentation, then ceteris paribus that agent should appropriately modify their mental attitude toward that standpoint. However, as David Godden (2010) shows, several influential “commitment-based” accounts of argumentation (in particular, Charles Hamblin’s (1970) dialectical theory, Douglas Walton and Erik Krabbe’s (1995) dialogue based theory and van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s (2004) pragma-dialectics) do not adequately attended to the pre-theoretic intuition that there is a normative relationship between what an agent ought to believe and the commitments the agent takes on in an argumentation. Commitment-based approaches to argumentation regard belief “to be too psychological a notion” (Godden 2010, p. 406) and instead of relying on the concept of belief such accounts focus on the commitments arguers publicly adopt during argumentations. Contrary to commitment-based theories Godden explicitly contends that, in typical cases, an agent should modify their mental attitude towards standpoints that the agent has conceded in an argumentation. Read more