Procedure for implementing the model

This research embraces Reisigl’s (2014) recent comments in which he acknowledges that the DHA’s analytical framework should include more explicit and detailed reconstruction of arguments. Following Reisigl, the thesis offers a detailed reconstruction and analysis of Nasrallah’s argumentative discourse based on the critical discussion model proposed by pragma-dialectics. Such a detailed and rigours reconstruction of argumentative texts can

64 _{In pragmatic argumentation (argument scheme from positive and negative consequences), a normative}

standpoint is defended by stating the negative or positive consequences of adopting a certain plan, policy or action. In reductio ad absurdum, a standpoint is defended by pointing out that a consequence of the contrary to the standpoint is an undisputable falsity (van Eemeren et al., 2009, p. 172–174).

133

enrich and strengthen CDS’s explanatory critique by adding another source of normativity. That is, it supplements the DHA with further evidence regarding the

manipulative character of hegemonic discourses. The analysis of speeches adheres to the following procedure:

• At the level of contextualising argumentative discourse: The criticisms, objections and accusations forwarded by Nasrallah’s opponents, i.e. the immediate context which gave rise to the confrontation, are presented in the first section of each of the analysis chapters (i.e. speech context). Thus, the speech context section

outlines the speech occasion and the related claims and arguments associated with differences of opinion.

• At the level of locating arguments: This research follows argumentation scholars’ differentiation among argumentation, explanation and narration (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012; Reisigl, 2014; Walton, 2006). In their view, argumentation is related to justifying and defending controversial claims with the aim of convincing or persuading. Explanation aims to make something more comprehensible for the objective of clarifying or specifying things, i.e. the starting point of an explanation is accepted and not contested. Finally, narration can overlap with argumentation when narrative episodes are employed to back up a claim, e.g. illustrative argumentation schemes (Reisigl, 2014). This distinction is important because Nasrallah’s speeches have many instances of narration and explanation tied to argumentation. In this case, the parts of speeches that are not related to the

134

resolution of disagreements are excluded from the analysis. This is presented in the preparatory section of each of the analysis chapters.

• At the level of identifying and recovering argumentative content: The four reconstruction transformation operations (see Section 3) are applied to ensure a faithful reconstruction of Nasrallah’s argumentation.

• At the level of reconstruction: The ideal model of critical discussion is the guiding framework for the reconstruction of Nasrallah’s argumentation, based on which the different stages of confrontation are reconstructed (confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding stages). A further guide is the set of

(argumentative) linguistic indicators (van Eemeren et al., 2007) that signal the beginning, the various argumentative moves and the ending of each stage.

• At the level of reconstructing argument schemes: In pragma-dialectics,

symptomatic, causal and comparison argumentation are the three generic types of which all other argument schemes are sub-types. The analysis also refers to some argument schemes that are identified by Walton et al. (2008), such as argument from values, argument from sacrifice, argument from fear appeal, argument from character to action and from action to character, which all fall under pragma- dialectics generic types. Reference to the aforementioned schemes intends to facilitate the reconstruction of arguments.

135

• At the level of evaluating arguments: The evaluation proceeds in the following manner. First, following pragma-dialectics, the different argumentative schemes are evaluated based on whether, or not, they conform to the ten rules of critical discussion. Therefore, the evaluation specifies the types of violations involved and their effects in derailing the critical testing of standpoints. Second, the rhetorical effectiveness of some of these fallacies is assessed based on insights from cognitive pragmatics. The objective is to show whether the acceptability of a given representation depends on satisfying, or otherwise, audiences’ epistemic vigilance. Third, the evaluation takes into account the effects of strategies underpinning the legitimation of assertions regarding audiences’ epistemic assessments (Hart, 2010, 2011), which, as I claim, are part of the discursive construction of charisma. Figure 4.4, below, summarises the steps followed in the implementation of the proposed model.

136

5. Conclusion

In this chapter, I have presented the main premises for incorporating pragma-dialectics into the DHA’s analytical framework. The model perceives the representation and argumentative functions of discourse as linked, rather than dichotomous. I propose that the DHA’s representation strategies are involved in the construction of argument schemes and in formulating the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring. I also propose that strategic

Preparatory step: Follows the reconstruction transformation operations

Reconstruction: a) Follows the ideal model of critical discussion and linguistic indicators b) Identifies argument schemes

Analysis: a) Shows how representation strategies enact the three aspects of strategic manoeuvring and argument schemes

b) Identifies fallacies

c) Shows how rescue narratives appear in premises for arguments

d) Identifies strategies pertaining to denying, shifting blame and legitimation

Evaluation: a) Evaluates fallacies as violations of the code of conduct

c) Evaluates effectiveness of fallacies based on cognitive pragmatics d) Evaluates charisma and its effects on audiences’ epistemic vigilance:

1. The construction of ethos (legitimation of assertions) and epistemic vigilance

2. Rescue narrative as a tool to overcome audiences’ epistemic defences

137

manoeuvring has a macro-function that goes hand in hand with resolving a difference of opinion to one’s own advantage, i.e. a legitimation function. Moreover, I suggest that rescue narratives have an argumentative function, inasmuch as elements of these

narratives are configured in premises for arguments. The chapter also provides a detailed description of the steps followed in implementing the proposed model. My next

endeavour is to show the applicability of this model to the selected data and its efficacy in offering appropriate answers to the thesis’s research questions. Therefore, the following chapters attempt to implement the proposed model on four speeches given by Nasrallah.

138

Chapter 5

July 2006 Speech: The Israeli war on Lebanon