PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL STRATEGIES OF MANOEUVRING IN POLITICAL ARGUMENTATION: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/7jrvf924Keywords:
Pragma-dialectical theory;, strategic manoeuvring, political argumentation.Abstract
A review paper commonly creates an understanding of a given topic for the reader through discussing the findings introduced in the latest research paper. Hence, it can be regarded as a text that contains a summary of the scholarly research on certain topics. Reviews are important in that they enable the reader to have an idea about the published works in a given field of study without reading the entire documents or public books. According to Jesson and Lacey (2017), reviews are classified into three categories; narrative or traditional, scoping, and systematic quantitative review. To Khan (2017), the main purpose of a narrative review is to give the reader a comprehensive overview of the topic to highlight important areas of research and define research questions. Whereas the principle purpose of scoping review is to find all the materials on the topic, “When undertaking a scoping review, it is important to systematize your search strategies to ensure you can replicate your searches and to attend to any gaps that appear in results” (Sandle, 2016:73). A systematic review, on the other hand, attempts to collect secondary data and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively (Boland & Dickson 2017). The current review is intended to be a narrative one. It aims to summarize and describe the literature published on the topic of ‘strategic manoeuvring and its strategies’ in relation to political argument. In response to achieve the mentioned aims, this review posits that politicians be inclined to use certain manoeuvring strategies more than others in in political speeches and interviews.The papers discussed here are chosen from peer-reviewed journals documented under Google Scholar, published in the last 13 years; 2006-2018 using many search keywords like ‘pragma-dialectics’, ‘pragmatics’, ‘speech acts’, ‘strategic manoeuvring’, and ‘political argumentation’. The speech act literature is grouped according to the type of argumentation on the basis of topic relatedness first and the type of perspective involved. So, the papers with similar topics sharing the same argumentative discourse are reviewed together. In addition, the studies discussed are only those on political manoeuvring since the scope of this paper is limited to political argumentative studies. the study highlights that the use of strategic manoeuvring in political argumentation is widespread. It also clarifies certain difficulties in evaluating the nature of manoeuvring whether it is a social, pragmatic or psychological phenomenon. Each discourse has its ideology. Each argumentative political study has its frame.This paper reviews the literature related to strategic manoeuvring as used in political argumentation. It aims to present the findings and discussions of the previous studies which call for further research. To look at more recent content, the literature search comprised in this review covered current research papers published between 2004 to 2018. A substantial number of scholarly articles were identified and
examined based on keywords search in Google Scholar. The discussions and findings are classified according to topic relatedness and the type of argumentation.
Downloads
References
1. Al- Duleimi, A.D. and Hammodi, W.R. (2015). A Pragmatic Study of Strategic Maneuvering in Selected Political Interviews. Babylon: University of Babylon.
2. Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews: Analyzing and Evaluating responses to accusation of inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
3. Boland, A., Cherry, G., & Dickson, R. (Eds.). (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student's guide. Sage.
4. Eemeren, F. H Van and Henkemans, A. F.Sn. (2016). Argumentation: Analysis and Evaluation.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
5. Jesson, J., Matheson, L., & Lacey, F. M. (2017). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. Sage.
6. Khan, M. T. (2017). Customer loyalty programs-concept, types, goals and benefits (a conceptual and review paper). International Journal of Information, Business and Management, 6(1), 74.
7. Kienpointer, M. (2013). Strategic Maneuvering in Political Rhetoric of Barack Obama. Language and Politics. Volume 12, PP: 357-377
8. Mitchell, G. R. (2010). Higher-Order Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
9. Nanba, H., Kando, N., & Okumura, M. (2017). Classification of research papers using citation links and citation types: Towards automatic review article generation. Advances in Classification Research Online, 11(1), 117-134.
10. Pietrucci, P. (2014). Strategic maneuvering through shifting ideographs in political discourse: A rhetorical analysis of Silvio Berlusconi’s first Liberation Day speech. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(3), 291-311.
11. Riker, W. H. (2016). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12. Sandle, T. (2016). A review of cleanroom microflora: types, trends, and patterns. PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, 65(4), 392-403.
13. Toader, A. (2016). Strategic Maneuvering in Presidential Debates. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov.
14. Tonnard, Y. (2008). Comments on: "Strategic Maneuvering in Political Argumentation. Amsterdam: Benjamins Publishing Company.
15. Van Dijk, M. P. (2006). Managing cities in developing countries. Books.
16. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (Eds.). (2015). Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (Vol. 9). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
17. Van Eemeren, F. H., and Peter H. (2002b.). “Strategic Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof.” In Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
18. Van Eemeren, F. H., and Peter H. (2008). “Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Exploring the Boundaries of Reasonableness.” In Understanding Argumentation. Work in Progress, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, David Cratis Williams, and Igor Z. Zagar, 13–25. Amsterdam: Sic Sat
19. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press.
20. Van Eemeren, F.H (2010). Fallacies as Derailments of Argumentative Discourse: Acceptance Based on Understanding and Critical Assessment. Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam. Volume 59, PP: 141- 152.
21. Van Eemeren, F.H (2013). "In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics". Argumentation, University of Amsterdam. Volume 27, PP: 49-70
22. Van Eemeren, F.H (2015). "Identifying Argumentative Patterns: A Vital Step in the Development of Pragma-Dialectics". Argumentation, University of Amsterdam. Volume 60, PP: 30:1–23
23. Van Eemeren, F.H (2017). "Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship". Argumentation, University of Amsterdam. Volume 37, PP: 322-350
24. Van Eemeren, F.H. (2012). "The Pragma-Dialectical Theory under Discussion". University of Amsterdam and ILIAS. Volume 26, PP: 439-457.
25. Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter H. (2002a.). “Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
26. Xie, Y. (2017). "Conductive Argument as a Mode Strategic Maneuvering". Institute of Logic and Cognition. Volume 37, PP: 2-22
27. Zarefsky, D. (2008). Strategic Maneuvering Through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric. Volume 20, PP: 399-416
28. Vaithegi, H., & Vezhaventhan, D. (2019). An empirical research on media as a political power in india. Test Engineering and Management, 81(11-12), 4938-4944. Retrieved from www.scopus.com
29. Chandra Sekhar Prasad, K., & Vezhaventhan, D. (2019). Development and modernization of political system. Test Engineering and Management, 81(11-12), 4882-4885. Retrieved from www.scopus.com
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
