LEADER 05186nam 2200757 a 450 001 9910971093803321 005 20240314014311.0 010 $a9789027271754 010 $a9027271755 035 $a(CKB)2550000001100432 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000917690 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11578624 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000917690 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10893225 035 $a(PQKB)10396842 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1316678 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1316678 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10734240 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL504858 035 $a(OCoLC)853238829 035 $a(DE-B1597)721076 035 $a(DE-B1597)9789027271754 035 $a(EXLCZ)992550000001100432 100 $a20130426d2013 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aArgumentation in political interviews $eanalyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency /$fCorina Andone 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aAmsterdam $cJohn Benjamins Pub. Co.$d2013 215 $aviii, 147 p. $cill 225 0 $aArgumentation in Context ;$v5 225 0$aArgumentation in context,$x1877-6884 ;$vv. 5 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 08$a9789027211224 311 08$a9027211221 311 08$a9781299736078 311 08$a1299736076 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and indexes. 327 $aArgumentation in Political Interviews -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Preface -- 1. Introduction -- 1.1 Responding to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview -- 1.2 A pragma-dialectical perspective on argumentation -- 1.3 Objectives and method of the study -- 1.4 Organization of the study -- 2. Analytically relevant responses to an accusation of inconsistency -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Communicative and interactional purposes of an accusation of inconsistency -- 2.3 Responses to an accusation of inconsistency -- 2.4 Conclusion -- 3. The political interview as an argumentative activity type -- 3.1 The institutional goal of political interviews -- 3.2 The initial situation -- 3.3 Starting points -- 3.4 Argumentative means -- 3.5 The possible outcome -- 3.6 Conclusion -- 4. Strategic maneuvering in response to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview -- 4.1 Accusations of inconsistency in a political interview -- 4.2 Retracting a standpoint in response to an accusation of inconsistency -- 4.3 Exploiting commitments to win the discussion -- Pattern 1: 'it depends' -- Pattern 2: 'we need to be clear' -- Pattern 3: 'there is a world of difference' -- 4.4 Conclusion -- 5. The reasonableness of responses to an accusation of inconsistency in a political interview -- 5.1 The reasonableness of confrontational strategic maneuvering -- 5.2 Soundness conditions -- 5.2.1 Soundness condition of openness -- 5.2.2 Soundness condition of relevance -- 5.2.3 Soundness condition of clarity -- 5.3 Conclusion -- 6. Conclusion -- 6.1 Main findings -- 6.2 Implications for further research -- References -- List of figures -- Name index -- Subject index. 330 $aIn Argumentation in Political Interviews Corina Andone uses the pragma-dialectical concept of strategic maneuvering to gain a better understanding of political interviews as argumentative practices. She analyzes and evaluates the way in which politicians react in political interviews to the accusation that the position they currently hold is inconsistent with a position they advanced before. The politicians' responses to such charges are examined for their strategic function by concentrating on a number of concrete cases and explaining how the arguers try to enhance their chances of winning the discussion. In addition, the soundness criteria are formulated for judging properly when the politicians' responses are indeed reasonable.This book is important to argumentation theorists, discourse analysts, communication scholars and all other researchers and students interested in the way in which language is used for the purpose of persuasion in a political context.Corina Andone is Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the Faculty of Humanities of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. 606 $aCommunication$xPolitical aspects 606 $aPersuasion (Rhetoric)$xPolitical aspects 606 $aRhetoric$xPolitical aspects 606 $aInterviewing 606 $aInconsistency (Logic) 606 $aConversation analysis 606 $aReasoning 615 0$aCommunication$xPolitical aspects. 615 0$aPersuasion (Rhetoric)$xPolitical aspects. 615 0$aRhetoric$xPolitical aspects. 615 0$aInterviewing. 615 0$aInconsistency (Logic) 615 0$aConversation analysis. 615 0$aReasoning. 676 $a320.01/4 700 $aAndone$b Corina$0479347 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910971093803321 996 $aArgumentation in political interviews$9260100 997 $aUNINA