Ricerca di contatti, progetti,
corsi e pubblicazioni

Argumentation in public communication I

Descrizione

Recent research in public communication discusses the importance of an argumentative turn in policy analysis. This turn is justified because, in public communication, most activities and interactions (oral and written) are characterized by argumentation, as actors are committed to be accountable for their decisions and give reasons for their claims. Argumentation in Public Communication I (3 ECTS) focuses on argumentation as a means to resolve disagreement through reasonable dialogue. It assumes that a well-conducted argumentative dialogue ideally increases the quality of public communication. This course provides students with a method to analyse and design arguments, based on a discussion of a series of case studies within different contexts of public communication, ranging from public press releases, to policy documents, to the debate around popular initiatives, to NGO campaigns and political debates and their echoes on the media. Students will be able to reconstruct which argument schemes are used in in different contexts and documents of public communication (distinguishing, for example, argument schemes such as means-end argumentation, analogy and appeals to authority), analyse their implicit premises and evaluate their validity. The course adopts a bottom-up approach, based on the analysis of empirical data (documents, oral discourses) in the field of public communication and administrative rhetoric. Classroom interaction will allow significant space for students’ discussion, group-work, and guided controversy in order to see how argumentation works in practice.

Evaluation is as follows: 15% based on an exercise of design of argumentative texts to be submitted during the course; 10% based on active participation to the class discussion; and 75% based on a final oral exam including the contents of the course and some reading materials (available through the iCorsi platform). A syllabus with more details will be provided at the beginning of the course.

For those who wish to know more about argumentation and the tools for analysing arguments in different domains of public communication, the additional course Argumentation in Public Communication II will be offered in SA 2018.

 

References

Aakhus, M. 2016. Understanding the competence involved in constructing argumentative contexts. In D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, volume II (pp. 153-161). London: College Publications.

Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Andone, C., and Greco, S. 2018 (forth). Evading the burden of proof in European Union soft law instruments: The case of Commission Recommendations. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique. Online first, DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-017-9527-8

Asen, R. 2010. Reflections on the role of rhetoric in public policy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 13(1): 121-144.

Barrett, M. 2013. Interculturalism and multiculturalism: similarities and differences. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

Cigada, S. 2008. Les émotions dans le discours de la construction européenne. Milano: ISU.

Danesi, M., and Greco, S. 2016 (ed.). Case studies in discourse analysis. Munich: Lincom.

Eemeren, F. H., van, and Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eemeren, F. H., van, 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Bejamins.

Eemeren, F.H., van, and Snoeck-Henkemans, F. 2017. Argumentation: Analysis and evaluation (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.

Fairclough, I., and Fairclough, N. 2012. Political discourse analysis. Abingdon (etc.): Routledge.

Fairclough, I., and Mădroane, I. D. 2014. An argumentative perspective on framing. Policy conflict, deliberation and framing in the Roşia Montană case. Paper presented at the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 1-4 July, 2014.

Freeley, A. J., and Steinberg, D. L. 2009 (12th edition). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Greco, S. 2012. Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: a case-study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies 14 (2): 197-216.

Greco, S., Palmieri, R., and Rigotti, E. 2016. Institutional argumentation and conflict prevention: The case of the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner. Journal of Pragmatics 105: 39–53.

Hansson, S. O., and Hirsch Hardonr, G. 2016 (Eds.). The argumentative turn in policy analysis. Reasoning about uncertainty. Cham: Springer.

Ihnen Jory, C. 2012. Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Kriesi, H. 2005. Direct democratic choice: The Swiss experience. Lanham (etc): Lexington Books.

Lewiński, M., and Mohammed, D. 2015. Tweeting the Arab Spring: Argumentative polylogues in digital media. In C. Palczewski (Ed.), Disturbing Argument: Selected Works from the 18th NCA/AFA Alta Conference on Argumentation (pp. 291-297). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Mohammed, D. 2013. Pursuing multiple goals in European Parliamentary debates: EU immigration policies as a case in point.  Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 47-74.

Olmos. P. 2015. Story credibility in narrative arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in Argumentation Theory (pp. 155-167). Cham (etc.): Springer.

Palmieri, R. 2014. Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Palmieri, R., and Mazzali-Lurati, S. 2016. Practical argumentation and multiple audience in policy proposals. In D. Mohammed and M. Lewinski (Eds.), Argumentation and reasoned action: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Argumentation, Lisbon 2015, volume I (pp. 567-588). London: College Publications.

Rigotti, E., and Greco Morasso, S. 2010. Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: the procedural and material components. Argumentation 24 (4): 489-512.

Schwarz, B. 2009. Argumentation and learning. In A.N. Perret-Clermont and N. Muller-Mirza (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices, New York: Springer, pp. 91-126.

Schwarz, B., and Baker, M. 2016. Dialogue, argumentation and education. History, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Xenitidou, M., and Greco Morasso, S. 2014. Parental discourse and identity management in the talk of indigenous and migrant speakers. Discourse & Society 25 (1): 100-121.

Zarefsky, D. 2007. Making the case of war: Colin Powell at the United Nations. Rhetoric & Public Affairs 10(2): 275-302.

Persone

 

Greco S.

Docente titolare del corso

van Bijnen E.

Assistente

Informazioni aggiuntive

Semestre
Primaverile
Anno accademico
2017-2018
ECTS
3