Argumentation in public communication II

Argumentation in Public Communication II (3 ECTS), which presupposes the theoretical and methodological foundations given in Part I, will complement the first part of the course by providing students with theoretical and methodological tools to analyse and produce different types of arguments in support of a given standpoint, thus providing more robust instruments to those who are willing to work in the field of public communication.

This course is entirely devoted to analysing and evaluating a series of argumentative case-studies within different contexts of public communication. Case studies will be taken, among other areas, from decisions made by Swiss institutions (such as the Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner), political discussions, public debate, press releases, NGO campaigns, and so on. For each case, a detailed reconstruction of the institutional context will be proposed, alongside the analysis of the most important argumentative strategies, especially in terms of argument schemes (loci) on which discourse is based (distinguishing, for example, between means-end argumentation, analogy, appeals to authority, and so on). Strengths and weaknesses of each argument schemes will be discussed in order to show possible applications in public communication. Implicit cultural premises and framing strategies in public discourse will be also discussed.

At the end of this course, students will have gained (a) the ability to evaluate which arguments are used in specific discourses and texts of public communication, knowing what is the hold of such arguments; (b) familiarity with the use of argument schemes to be used in the design of argumentative interventions; (c) knowledge about the relation between types of argumentation and types of institutional contexts. In order to familiarise with these aspects, students will be required to actively participating in classes.

80% of the evaluation is based on a final oral exam, in which students will present and defend their own analysis of a case of public argumentation. The remaining 20% will be based on a presentation to be given during the course. Specifically, each student will be required to choose a scientific paper from a selection of resources about public communication viewed in the perspective of argumentation; he or she will present this paper to the class and stimulate discussion.

Riferimenti bibliografici
Andone, C. 2013. Argumentation in political interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
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 Morasso, S. 2008. The ontology of conflict. Pragmatics and Cognition 16 (3): 540-567.
Greco Morasso, S. 2011. Argumentation in dispute mediation: A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Greco Morasso, S. (2012). Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: a case-study in media argumentation. Discourse Studies 14 (2): 197-216.
Honeyman, C., Goh, B.C., and Kelly, L. 2004. Skill is not enough: Seeking connectedness and authority in mediation. Negotiation Journal 20(4): 489-511.
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.
Palmieri, R. 2014. Corporate argumentation in takeover bids. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rigotti, E., and Greco Morasso, S. 2009. Argumentation as object of interest and as social and cultural resource. In A.N. Perret-Clermont and N. Muller-Mirza (Eds.), Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices, New York: Springer, pp. 9-66.
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.
Rigotti, E., Greco, S., and Palmieri, R. (submitted). Argumentative institutions and conflict prevention: The case of the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner. Invited paper for the volume: C. Ilie and G. Garzone (Eds.), Argumentation in real and virtual environments: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shmueli, D., and Ben Gal, M. 2003. Stakeholder frames in the mapping of the lower Kishon River Basin conflict. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21(2)2: 211-238.
Strategic revision of public documents. In: D. Janssen and R. Neutelings (Eds.), Reading and writing public documents (pp. 211-232), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
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.