Access to Document
FingerprintDive into the research topics of 'Argumentation and Fallacy in newspaper op/ed coverage of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
Argumentation and Fallacy in newspaper op/ed coverage of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq. / Wilson, John; Sahlane, Ahmed; Somerville, Ian.In: Journal of Language and Politics, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.03.2012, p. 1-31.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Argumentation and Fallacy in newspaper op/ed coverage of the prelude to the invasion of Iraq
AU - Wilson, John
AU - Sahlane, Ahmed
AU - Somerville, Ian
N1 - Reference text: Adeodato, Joao Mauricio. 1999. The rhetorical syllogism (enthymeme) in judicial argumenta- tion. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 12, 135–152. Adler, Jonathan E. 2007. Asymmetrical analogical arguments. Argumentation 21, 83–92. Altheide, David. L. and Grimes, J. N. 2005. War Programming: the propaganda project and the Iraq War. The Sociological Quarterly 46, 617–643. Aronovitch, Hillard. 1997. The political importance of analogical argument. Political Studies XLV, 78–92. Beinin, Joel. 2004. The new American McCarthyism: policing thought about the Middle East. Race & Class 46(1), 101–115. Bekalu, Mesfin Awoke. 2006. Presupposition in news discourse. Discourse & Society 17(2), 147– 172. Bellamy, Alex J. 2004. Ethics and intervention: the ‘humanitarian exception’ and the problem of abuse in the case of Iraq. Journal of Peace Research 41 (2),131–147. Benson, Rodney and Hallin, Daniel C. 2007. How states, markets and globalization shape the news: The French and US national press, 1965–97. European Journal of Communication 22(1), 27–48. Blommaert, Jan and Verschueren, Jef. 1998. Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourse of Toler- ance. London: Routledge. Boggs, Carl and Pollard, Tom. 2006. Hollywood and the spectacle of terrorism. New Political Science 28(3), 335–351. Crick, Ruth D. and Joldersma, Clarence W. 2007. Habermas, lifelong learning and citizenship education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 26, 77–95. Cummings, Louise. 2004. Rejecting the urge to theorise in fallacy Inquiry. Argumentation 18, 61–94. Degano, Chiara. 2007. Presupposition and dissociation in discourse: A corpus study. Argumen- tation 21, 361–378.De Wijze, Stephen. 2003. Complexity, relevance and character: Problems with teaching the ad hominem fallacy. Educational Philosophy and Theory 35(1), 31–56. Dijk,Teun A. Van. 1998. Opinions and ideologies in the press. In: Allan Bell, and Peter Garrett (eds). Approaches to Media Discourse. Oxford:Blackwell, 21–63 Eemeren, Frans H. van and Grootendorst, Rob. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fal- lacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers: Hills- dale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Grootendorst, Rob. 1995. The Pragma-Dialectical approach to fal- lacies. In: Hans V. Hansen and Robert C. Pinto (eds.). Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 130–144. Eemeren Frans H. Van, Grootendorst Rob, Snoeck Henkemans A. Francisca, Blair J. Antho- ny, Johnson Ralph H., Krabbe Erick C.W., Plantin Christian, Walton Douglas N., Willard Charles A., Woods John and David Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theo- ry: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eemeren Frans H. van, Meuffels Bert and Verburg Mariël. 2000. The (un)reasonableness of ad Hominem fallacies. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 19, 416– 435. Eemeren Frans H. van and Grootendorst Rob. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation:The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Houtlosser, Peter. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4), 479–497. Eemeren, Frans H. van and Houtlosser, Peter. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic reca- pitulation. Argumentation 20, 381–392. Feteris, Eveline T. 2000. A dialogical theory of legal discussions: Pragma-Dialectical analysis and evaluation of legal argumentation. Artificial Intelligence and Law 8, 115–135. Feteris, Eveline T. 2002. A Pragma-Dialectical approach of the analysis and evaluation of prag- matic argumentation in a legal context. Argumentation 16, 349–367. Gerges, Fawaz A. 1999. America and Political Islam: Clashes of Cultures or Clashes of Interests? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Greenberg, Joshua and Hier, Sean. 2001. Crisis, mobilization and collective problematization: ‘illegal’ Chinese migrants and the Canadian news media. Journalism Studies 2(4), 563–583. Hackett, Robert A. And Zhao, Yuezhi. 1994. Challenging a master narrative: Peace protest and opinion/editorial discourse in the US press during the Gulf war. Discourse & Society 5(4), 509–541. Hallin, Daniel C. and Mancini, Paolo. 2004. Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hartnett, Stephen J. and Stengrim, Laura A. 2004. ‘The whole operation of deception’: Recon- structing President Bush’s rhetoric of weapons of mass descruction. Cultural Studies Criti- cal Methodologies 4(2), 152–197. Ihnen, Constanza and Richarson, John E. 2011. On combining Pragma-Dialectics with Critical Discourse Analysis http://newcastle.academia.edu/JohnRichardson/Papers/914039/_2011. Ikuenobe, Polycarp. 2004 On the theoretical unification and nature of fallacies. Argumentation 18, 189–201. Ismael, Tareq Y. and Ismael, Jacqueline S. 2005. Whither Iraq? Beyond Saddam, sanctions and occupation. Third World Quarterly 26(4–5), 609–629.Jacobs, Scott. 2002. Messages, Functional Contexts, and Categories of Fallacy. In: Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (eds.). Dialectic and Rhetoric: the Warp and Woof of Argu- mentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 119–130. Jacobs, Scott. 2006. Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s daisy ad. Argumenta- tion 20, 421–442. Jacobs, Scott and Aakhus, Mark. 2002. Colloquy: Talking in and about conflict–discourse stud- ies of conflict processes. What mediators do with words: implementing three models of rational dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quaterly 20(2), 177–203. Kornprobst, Markus. 2007. Comparing apples and oranges? Leading and misleading uses of historical analogies. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 36(1), 29–49. Kull, Steven, Ramsay, Clay and Lewis, Evan. 2004. Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly 118(4), 569–598. Lafollette, Hugh. 2005. Living on a slippery slope. The Journal of Ethics 9, 475– 499 Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. 1999 Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books Leeuwen, Theo van and Wodak, Ruth. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse- historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1(1), 83–118. Letcu-Fairclough, Isabela. 2010. Argumentations, and CDA, presentation at Language, ideology and politics Workshop, Lancaster University 27th January 2010. Manolescu, Beith Innocenti. 2006. A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation 20, 327–343. Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen M. 2006. The Israel lobby and U.S. foreign policy. Mid- dle East Policy XIII (3), 29–87. Morgan, Glyn. 2008. Security, stability, and international Order. American Behavioral Scientist 51(9), 1322–1338. Nikolaev, Alexander and Porpora, Douglas. 2007. Talking war: How elite U.S. newspaper edito- rials and opinion pieces debated the attack on Iraq. Sociological Focus 40 (1), 6–25. Powers, Lawerence. 1995. The one fallacy theory. Informal Logic 17, 303–314. Reisigl, Martin and Wodak, Ruth. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge. Reynolds, Mike. 2000. The blending of narrative and argument in the generic texture of newspa- per editorials. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10 (1), 25–40. Richardson, John E. and Wodak, Ruth 2009 Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: right-wing discourses on employment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom. Critical Discourse Studies 6(4), 251–267. Sahlane, Ahmed. 2009. The Discursive (Re)construction of the 2003 Iraq War in Pro- and Anti- War Opinion/Editorial Argumentation: A Critical Discourse Analytic Approach. Unpub- lished Ph D Thesis, The University of Ulster, School of Communication, Belfast, UK. Schuetz, Janice. 2005. Arguments of victims: A case study of the Timothy McVeigh trial. In: Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser (eds). Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 197–214. Shi-Xu. 1997. Cultural Representations: Analyzing the Discourse about the Other. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Simon-Vandenbergen Anne-Marie, White Peter R. R. and Aijmer Karin. 2007. Presupposition and ‘taking-for-granted’ in mass communicated political argument: An illustration from British, Flemish and Swedish political colloquy. In: Fetzer, Anita and Lauerbach, Gerda Eva (eds). Political Discourse in the Media. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 31–74.Talisse, Robert and Aikin, Scott F. 2006. Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20, 345– 352. Walton, Douglas.1989. Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walton, Douglas.1996. Argumentation for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Walton, Douglas. 2002. The sunk costs fallacy or argument from waste. Argumentation 16, 473– 503. Walton, Douglas. 2004. Argumentation schemes and historical origins of the circumstantial Ad Hominem Argument. Argumentation 18, 359–368. Warren, John. 2005. War and the cultural heritage of Iraq: A sadly mismanaged affair. Third World Quarterly 26(4–5), 815–830. Wilkins, Karin and Downing, John. 2002. Mediating terrorism: Text and protest in interpreta- tions of the siege. Critical Studies in Media Communication 19(4), 419–437. Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Winkler, Carol K. 2008. Encroachments on state sovereignty: The argumentation strategies of the George W. Bush administration. Argumentation 22, 473–488. Wodak Ruth, de Cillia Rudolf, Reisigl Martin and Liebhart Karin. 1999. The Discursive Con- struction of National Identity. Edinburgh University Press. Translated by Angelica Hirsch and Richard Mitten. Wodak, Ruth. and Meyer, Michael. (eds.). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Wodak, Ruth. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Woods, John. 1998. File of fallacies: Argumentum ad baculum. Argumentation 12, 493–504. Wright, Walter. 2000. Historical analogies, slippery slopes, and the question of euthanasia. Jour- nal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28: 176–186. Yaphe, Judith S. 2005. Bush policy and the (de)stabilization of the Persian Gulf. In: Louis J. Cantori and Augustus Richard Norton. (eds). Evaluating the Bush Menu for Change in the Middle East. A roundtable of the conference group at the American Political Science Association Annual meeting, Chicago, Sep.5th, 2004 Middle East Policy XII(1), 108–110. Zhang, Juyan. 2007. Beyond anti-terrorism: Metaphors as message strategy of post-September -11 U.S. public diplomacy. Public Relations Review 33(1), 31–39.
PY - 2012/3/1
Y1 - 2012/3/1
N2 - This study examines how the pre-war debate of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was discursively constructed in pro- and anti-war newspaper op/ed argumenta- tion. Drawing on insights from argumentation theory, and using these within a framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, we explore fallacious arguments within the ‘justification discourse’ used in the pro-war opinion/editorials (op/ eds). We argue that the type of arguments marshalled by the pro-war op/ed com- mentators uncritically bolstered the set of U.S. official ‘truth claims’ and ‘presup- positions’. Conversely, anti-war op/ed debaters dismissed the Bush administra- tion’s ‘neo-imperialistic’ reasoning and called into question the logic of militarist ‘humanitarianism’ by arguing that brute force and daylight ‘plunder,’ found in the language of a ‘noble ideal,’ were part of a long Western colonialist tradition that glorified the West as the ‘civiliser’ of distant cultural others. Keywords: Argumentation, fallacy, CDA, media discourse, Iraq, op/eds
AB - This study examines how the pre-war debate of the U.S. decision to invade Iraq was discursively constructed in pro- and anti-war newspaper op/ed argumenta- tion. Drawing on insights from argumentation theory, and using these within a framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, we explore fallacious arguments within the ‘justification discourse’ used in the pro-war opinion/editorials (op/ eds). We argue that the type of arguments marshalled by the pro-war op/ed com- mentators uncritically bolstered the set of U.S. official ‘truth claims’ and ‘presup- positions’. Conversely, anti-war op/ed debaters dismissed the Bush administra- tion’s ‘neo-imperialistic’ reasoning and called into question the logic of militarist ‘humanitarianism’ by arguing that brute force and daylight ‘plunder,’ found in the language of a ‘noble ideal,’ were part of a long Western colonialist tradition that glorified the West as the ‘civiliser’ of distant cultural others. Keywords: Argumentation, fallacy, CDA, media discourse, Iraq, op/eds
U2 - 10.1075/jlp.11.1.01wil
DO - 10.1075/jlp.11.1.01wil
M3 - Article
VL - 11
SP - 1
EP - 31
JO - Journal of Language and Politics
JF - Journal of Language and Politics
SN - 1569-2159
IS - 1