Sadra Khosravi; Masoud Kousari
Abstract
Discussion is asking for a reason from the others; it is not a one-way presentation of our claims, but an interaction (two-way) communication, where communicators and communicatees change their turns and roles continuously, arguing and reacting to each other’s arguments. In discussions of social ...
Read More
Discussion is asking for a reason from the others; it is not a one-way presentation of our claims, but an interaction (two-way) communication, where communicators and communicatees change their turns and roles continuously, arguing and reacting to each other’s arguments. In discussions of social networks in cyberspace, the communication processes are transactional; because they are not just dyadic questions-and-answers, but a helix of feedbacks and feedforwards by others. They are not only reasoning to persuade others, but they may include fallacy, claiming without warrants, and using rhetorical devices for persuasion. This paper is dedicated to sub-processes of critical discussions (i.e. reasoning, fallacies, and strategic maneuvering between them) among Iranian users of two virtual communities within Facebook. Toulmin’s argumentation model was applied to recognize reasoning practices and analyze fallacies. Van Eemeren’s Pragma-dialectic was used to understand how normative principles of a discussion are violated, but the discourse remains dynamic and communications continue. We concluded these discussions are examples of flouting of Grice cooperative principle, and they are performances of Wittgenstein’s concept of language games.
