Revealing the Utilization of Pragma-dialectics and Fallacies in BongBong Marcos Supporters' Facebook Argumentations
Keywords:
Strategic maneuvering, Pragma-dialectical, Argumentation;, Fallacies, Systematic theory
Abstract
In this modern era, most transactions occur online, including the management of disputes. However, argumentation in the context of social media is rarely articulated in detail. Intuitively, people may recognize flaws in argumentation but may not be entirely certain about them. Hence, this research evaluates the reasonableness and effectiveness of online argumentation, particularly among Bongbong Marcos' supporters, as significant opposition exists due to his 2022 Philippine presidential candidacy. One example analyzed is De La Salle University's written unity statement posted on their Facebook page. Discourse analysis was employed to examine the data. Results show that Bongbong Marcos' supporters in the argumentative activity are not strategic in constructing their standpoint, as they distort critical discussion stages and commit fallacious arguments, failing to attain crucial stages of the evaluation process. Thus, Bongbong Marcos' supporters are not strategic in their arguments.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Ainsworth-Vaughn, N. (1998). Claiming power in doctor–patient talk. Oxford University Press.
Alcoba, S., & Poch, D. (2010). Argumentación, cortesía y ´poder´en las cuñas de radio [Argumentation, politeness, and 'power' in radio spots]. In F. Orletti & L. Mariottini (Eds.), Descortesía en español. Espacios teóricos y metodológicos para su estudio. Roma/Estocolmo (pp. 285-314). Università Roma Tre-EDICE.
Al-Hindawi, F. H., & Jubair, B. (2021). Audience demands as a strategic maneuver in Imam Al-Hassan. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(5), 242-252. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.5.27
Arnold, T. (2023, February). Logical fallacies – Guides. University of Iowa Libraries. https://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/c.php?g=849536&p=6077643
Bairmani, H., & Algretawee, S. M. O. (2021). Presentational devices of strategic manoeuvring in pragma dialectical. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12(7), 7686–7700.
Calderaro, A. (2018). Social media and politics. In W. Outhwaite & S. T. Outhwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political sociology, 2v (pp. 781–796). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Castells, N., Garcia-Mila, M., Miralda-Banda, A., Luna, J., & Pérez, E. (2022). El razonamiento de los adolescentes paragestionar las noticias falsas [Adolescents’ reasoning tomanage fake news]. Educación XX1, 25(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.31693
Cionea, I. A., Piercy, C. W., Bostwick, E. N., & Mumpower, S. W. (2019). Argumentative competence in friend and stranger dyadic exchanges. Argumentation, 33(4), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09487-x
Clahsen, S. C. S., Moss, L., Van Kamp, I., Vermeire, T. G., Garssen, B. J., Piersma, A. H., & Lebret, E. (2020). Analysis of different preferences for the EU’s regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory. The Science of the Total Environment, 740, 140076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140076
El Khoiri, N., & Widiati, U. (2017). Logical fallacies in EFL learners’ argumentative writings. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v17i1.638
Gijimah, T., & Sabao, C. (2022). Decolonising Christian based “Prophetship”: A pragma-dialectic analysis of re/presentations of faith healing and faith healers in Zimbabwean newspapers. Journal of African Languages and Literary Studies, 3(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2116/2022/v3n1a3
Greco, S., Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2017). Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation? Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
Gunawan, S. (2013). Driving home persuasive messages in Barack Obama’s closing argument “One Week”. k@ta, 15(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.15.1.47-56
Issa, M. B., & Abbas, N. F. (2022). Genre-based analysis of selected political debates: A discourse analysis study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 13(4), 412-426. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ewmy5
Jefferson, A. (2014). Slippery slope arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12161
Jovičić, T. (2004). Authority-based argumentative strategies: A model for their evaluation. Argumentation, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000014817.31435.87
Kaskazi, A., & Kitzie, V. (2023). Engagement at the margins: Investigating how marginalized teens use digital media for political participation. New Media and Society, 25(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211009460
Kimanova, L. B. (2010). Analysis of arguments in the public debate on the alphabet change in bilingual Kazakhstan. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 1021–1035.
Liqing, W. (2021). A case study on the development of Chinese EFL debaters’ argumentative competence. Studies in English Language Teaching, 9(4), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v9n4p56
Lismay, L. (2020). Logical fallacies on students’ argumentative writing. ELP, 5(2), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.36665/elp.v5i2.321
Michaud, N. (2018). Inappropriate appeal to authority. In R. Arp, S. Barbone, & M. Bruce (Eds.), Bad arguments: 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy (pp. 168–171). John Wiley & Sons.
Mueller, M., & Yankelewitz, D. (2014). Fallacious argumentation in student reasoning: Are there benefits? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9398
Muñiz, M. (2018). Hasty generalization. In R. Arp, S. Barbone, & M. Bruce (Eds.), Bad arguments, 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy (pp. 354–356). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119165811.ch84
Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, May 8). Post hoc fallacy: Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/
Osisanwo, A., & Adegbenro, S. (2021). The leader is a watchman: A pragma-dialectical reading of Olusegun Obasanjo’s My Watch. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 4(3), 1072–1083.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1991). The new rhetoric. Philosophy Today, 1(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday195711/42
Scott, J. H. (n.d.). The principles of argumentation. Summer Bridge. http://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html
TED. (2012, April 3). Connected, but alone?: Sherry Turkle [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. SAGE.
UNESCO. (2023, August 14). UNESCO and sustainable development goals. https://en.unesco.org/sustainabledevelopmentgoals
van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001004005
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. John Benjamins Publishing.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. S. Henkemans, B. Verheij, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Handbook of argumentation theory (pp. 517–613). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_10
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17(4), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026334218681
Van Haaften, T. (2019). Argumentative strategies and stylistic devices. Informal Logic, 39(4), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i4.6037
Widyanti, N. (2013). A stylistic-pragmatic analysis of figurative language in Harper’s Bazaar Magazine Advertisement [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Yogyakarta State University.
Wodak, R. (2016). Argumentation, political. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 1-9). John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc080
Wu, P., & Zhou, T. (2023). Argumentative patterns based on pragmatic argumentation at China’s diplomatic press conferences. Discourse Studies, 25(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231163420
Alcoba, S., & Poch, D. (2010). Argumentación, cortesía y ´poder´en las cuñas de radio [Argumentation, politeness, and 'power' in radio spots]. In F. Orletti & L. Mariottini (Eds.), Descortesía en español. Espacios teóricos y metodológicos para su estudio. Roma/Estocolmo (pp. 285-314). Università Roma Tre-EDICE.
Al-Hindawi, F. H., & Jubair, B. (2021). Audience demands as a strategic maneuver in Imam Al-Hassan. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 4(5), 242-252. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2021.4.5.27
Arnold, T. (2023, February). Logical fallacies – Guides. University of Iowa Libraries. https://guides.lib.uiowa.edu/c.php?g=849536&p=6077643
Bairmani, H., & Algretawee, S. M. O. (2021). Presentational devices of strategic manoeuvring in pragma dialectical. Turkish Online Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 12(7), 7686–7700.
Calderaro, A. (2018). Social media and politics. In W. Outhwaite & S. T. Outhwaite (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of political sociology, 2v (pp. 781–796). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Castells, N., Garcia-Mila, M., Miralda-Banda, A., Luna, J., & Pérez, E. (2022). El razonamiento de los adolescentes paragestionar las noticias falsas [Adolescents’ reasoning tomanage fake news]. Educación XX1, 25(2), 291–313. https://doi.org/10.5944/educxx1.31693
Cionea, I. A., Piercy, C. W., Bostwick, E. N., & Mumpower, S. W. (2019). Argumentative competence in friend and stranger dyadic exchanges. Argumentation, 33(4), 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09487-x
Clahsen, S. C. S., Moss, L., Van Kamp, I., Vermeire, T. G., Garssen, B. J., Piersma, A. H., & Lebret, E. (2020). Analysis of different preferences for the EU’s regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory. The Science of the Total Environment, 740, 140076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140076
El Khoiri, N., & Widiati, U. (2017). Logical fallacies in EFL learners’ argumentative writings. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.21093/di.v17i1.638
Gijimah, T., & Sabao, C. (2022). Decolonising Christian based “Prophetship”: A pragma-dialectic analysis of re/presentations of faith healing and faith healers in Zimbabwean newspapers. Journal of African Languages and Literary Studies, 3(1), 47–74. https://doi.org/10.31920/2633-2116/2022/v3n1a3
Greco, S., Mehmeti, T., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2017). Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation? Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(2), 193–219. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre
Gunawan, S. (2013). Driving home persuasive messages in Barack Obama’s closing argument “One Week”. k@ta, 15(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.15.1.47-56
Issa, M. B., & Abbas, N. F. (2022). Genre-based analysis of selected political debates: A discourse analysis study. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 13(4), 412-426. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/ewmy5
Jefferson, A. (2014). Slippery slope arguments. Philosophy Compass, 9(10), 672–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12161
Jovičić, T. (2004). Authority-based argumentative strategies: A model for their evaluation. Argumentation, 18(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000014817.31435.87
Kaskazi, A., & Kitzie, V. (2023). Engagement at the margins: Investigating how marginalized teens use digital media for political participation. New Media and Society, 25(1), 72–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211009460
Kimanova, L. B. (2010). Analysis of arguments in the public debate on the alphabet change in bilingual Kazakhstan. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 10(3), 1021–1035.
Liqing, W. (2021). A case study on the development of Chinese EFL debaters’ argumentative competence. Studies in English Language Teaching, 9(4), 56–68. https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v9n4p56
Lismay, L. (2020). Logical fallacies on students’ argumentative writing. ELP, 5(2), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.36665/elp.v5i2.321
Michaud, N. (2018). Inappropriate appeal to authority. In R. Arp, S. Barbone, & M. Bruce (Eds.), Bad arguments: 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy (pp. 168–171). John Wiley & Sons.
Mueller, M., & Yankelewitz, D. (2014). Fallacious argumentation in student reasoning: Are there benefits? European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/9398
Muñiz, M. (2018). Hasty generalization. In R. Arp, S. Barbone, & M. Bruce (Eds.), Bad arguments, 100 of the most important fallacies in Western philosophy (pp. 354–356). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119165811.ch84
Nikolopoulou, K. (2023, May 8). Post hoc fallacy: Definition & examples. Scribbr. https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/post-hoc-fallacy/
Osisanwo, A., & Adegbenro, S. (2021). The leader is a watchman: A pragma-dialectical reading of Olusegun Obasanjo’s My Watch. Budapest International Research and Critics in Linguistics and Education (BirLE) Journal, 4(3), 1072–1083.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1991). The new rhetoric. Philosophy Today, 1(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday195711/42
Scott, J. H. (n.d.). The principles of argumentation. Summer Bridge. http://www.csun.edu/~hcpas003/argument.html
TED. (2012, April 3). Connected, but alone?: Sherry Turkle [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Xr3AsBEK4
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. SAGE.
UNESCO. (2023, August 14). UNESCO and sustainable development goals. https://en.unesco.org/sustainabledevelopmentgoals
van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1(4), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445699001004005
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. John Benjamins Publishing.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Henkemans, A. F. S., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, E. C. W. Krabbe, A. F. S. Henkemans, B. Verheij, & J. H. M. Wagemans (Eds.), Handbook of argumentation theory (pp. 517–613). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_10
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17(4), 365–386. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026334218681
Van Haaften, T. (2019). Argumentative strategies and stylistic devices. Informal Logic, 39(4), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i4.6037
Widyanti, N. (2013). A stylistic-pragmatic analysis of figurative language in Harper’s Bazaar Magazine Advertisement [Unpublished undergraduate thesis]. Yogyakarta State University.
Wodak, R. (2016). Argumentation, political. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 1-9). John Wiley & Sons. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118541555.wbiepc080
Wu, P., & Zhou, T. (2023). Argumentative patterns based on pragmatic argumentation at China’s diplomatic press conferences. Discourse Studies, 25(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456231163420
Published
2024-12-20
How to Cite
Largado, C. G., Arranguez, M. S., Cahumna, Y., & Minoza, J. (2024). Revealing the Utilization of Pragma-dialectics and Fallacies in BongBong Marcos Supporters’ Facebook Argumentations. K@ta: A Biannual Publication on the Study of Languange and Literature, 26(2), 103-120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.9744/kata.26.2.103-120
Section
Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License
.png)
.png)
.png)
