Çok Katılımcılı Bir Tv Tartışma Programında Stratejik Manevraların Rayından Çıkması: Ignoratio Elenchi (İlgisiz Savlama) Safsatası

Year 2018, Volume: 15 Issue: 1, 25 - 58, 01.01.2018

Yeliz Demir

Abstract

Edimsel-eytişimsel yaklaşıma göre ignoratio elenchi safsatası, bir tartışmacının stratejik
manevrasının, eleştirel tartışma kurallarından olan ilgililik kuralını ihlal
etmesi dolayısıyla rayından çıkması durumudur (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002).
Bu çalışmanın amacı çok katılımcılı televizyon tartışma programının kurumsal
kısıtlamalarını tanıtmak ve ilgisiz savlamanın bu iletişimsel aktivite biçimde
safsata olarak sayıldığına delil olan durumları ve safsatanın ortaya çıkış
biçimini örneklemektir. Çalışmada veri olarak Siyaset Meydanı programının iki
bölümü kullanılmaktadır. Bazı kesitlerin analizi sonucunda, savlamada ilgililik
kuralına hem moderatörün hem de katılımcıların duyarlılık gösterdiği ortaya
konulmuştur. Aynı zamanda, katılımcıların konu avantajından yararlanmasının
etkili bir stratejik manevra yöntemi olabileceği ancak bunun her durumda makul
bir savlama hareketi olmayabileceği gözlemlenmiştir.  

Keywords

Çok katılımcılı tartışma, Stratejik manevra, Safsata, Ignoratio elenchi safsatası, Edimsel-eytişimsel yaklaşım

Derailment of Strategic Maneuvering in a Multi-Participant Tv Debate: The Fallacy of Ignoratio Elenchi

Abstract

In pragma-dialectical terms, the fallacy of ignoratio
elenchi results from derailment of an arguer’s strategic maneuvering by
violating the relevance rule of a critical discussion (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Henkemans, 2002).
This study aims to
introduce the institutional constraints of a multi-participant TV debate (MPTD) which provide
evidence for regarding irrelevant argumentation fallacious (i.e., an
unreasonable argumentative move) in this communicative activity type and
illustrate how stategic maneuvering derails and leads to this fallacy. The
paper draws its data from two episodes of Siyaset
Meydanı. The analysis of extracts from the data revealed that both the
moderator and the participants of the debate show sensitivity to arguing
relevantly. Furthermore, it was observed that participans’ maneuvering with the
topical potential can be an effective argumentative move but not always
reasonable.

Keywords

Multi-participant TV debate, Strategic maneuvering, Fallacy, Ignoratio elenchi, Pragma-dialectics

References

• Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews: Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Demir, Y. (2014). Characterizing multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the argumentative discourse in Siyaset Meydanı. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Hacettepe University, Ankara.
• Demir, Y. (2017). Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type. In C. Ilie & G. Garzone (Eds.), Argumentation across communities of practice: Multi-disciplinary perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Edwards, A. R. (2002). The moderator as an emerging democratic intermediary: The role of the moderator in internet discussions about public. Information Polity, 7, 3-20.
• Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. (2010). Constraints on political deliberation: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 13-32.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1997). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves. In J. Klumpp (Ed.), Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 51-56). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.). Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 289-292). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2004). More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The case of tu quoque. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson and R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications: Informal Logic @ 25. CD ROM ISBN 0-9683461-2-X-3-8. Windsor: OSSA.
• Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.). The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, May 18-21, 2005 (pp. 75-84). Hamilton, ON: OSSA.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2009). Strategic maneuvering: Examining argumentation in context. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Emmertsen, S. (2007). Interviewers’ challenging question in British debate interviews. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 570-591.
• Feteris, E. T. (2006). Pragmatic argumentation in law: A pragma-dialectical reconstruction of argumentation from unacceptable consequences in judicial decisions. In F. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on argumentation: Views from the Venice Argumentation Conference. (pp. 113-126). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
• Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). The structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic basis for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251-265.
• Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. Amsterdam: SicSat.
• Mohammed, D. (2009). The honourable gentleman should make up his mind: Strategic maneuvering with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Amsterdam: Amsterdam.
• Pilgram, R. (2009). Argumentation in doctor-patient interaction: medical consultation as a pragma-dialectical communicative activity type. Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 153-169.
• Sunay, R. (2012). The importance of public debate in democratic regimes. European Scientific Journal, 8(9), 34-45.
• Thomas, R. J. (2012). Considering the ethical obligations of presidential debate moderators. Media Ethics, 23(2).
• Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Argumentative patterns for justifying scientific explanations. Argumentation, 30, 97-108.
• Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.