Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Institute for Social and Cultural Studies
2 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
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 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.
Keywords
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Pres.
Besnard, P., Hunter, A. (2008). Elements of Argumentation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gill, R. (2000). “Discourse Analysis”. Pp172-190. In M. Baue and G. Gaskell (Eds.). Qualitative Researching with Text, Image, and Sound. London: Sage.
Goodnight, G. T. (1982). "The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument." Journal of the American Forensics Association. 18:214-227.
Grice, H. P. (1989). “Logic and Conversation”. Pp22-40. In P. H. Grice. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. First published in P. Cole and J. Morgan (Eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. Pp41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Littlejohn, S. W., Foss, K. A. (2008). Theories of Human Communication. Ninth Edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts: an Essay on the Philosophy of Language. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). “Multidisciplinary Critical Discourse Analysis”. Pp95-120. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Eds.). Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum.
Willard, C. A. (1980). "Some Questions about Toulmin's View of Argument Fields." Pp348-400. In J. Rhodes, S. Newell (Eds.). Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation. Alta, Utah, US: Falls Church SCA.
References [In Persian]
Abdollahi, M., Amal-e Sal;eh, A. (2012). An Analysis of Argumentative Texts of Qajar Era. Journal of Poetry Studies (Boostan Adab), 4(2), 151-174. DOI: 10.22099/jba.2012.462 [In Persian]
Abdollahi, M., Farhanian, F. (2011). A Look at Language Games of Emotions. Marifat-e Falsafi, 8(3), 173-193. [In Persian]
Abdollahyan, H., & Sheikh Ansari, M. (2016). Conceptualization and Operationalization of Speech acts in Facebook. Sociological Cultural Studies, 7(3), 87-116. [In Persian]
Aghagolzadeh F., Kheirabadi, R., Golfam A., Kord-e Zafaranlu Kambuziya, A. (2012). The Linguistic Model of News Composition and Selection: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Language Related Research, 3(4), 25-42. [In Persian]
Ajili, H., & Solgi, M. (2016). A way to resolve the conflict "Lyotard and Habermas 'on' Language and consensus.". Wisdom and Philosophy, 12(47), 7-28. DOI: 10.22054/wph.2016.7291. [In Persian]
Akbari, M., & Salari, M. (2019). Examining Language and Language Games In Postmodern Persian Poetry. Journal of Literary Criticism and Rhetoric, 8(1), 21-39. [In Persian]
Aleghafour, M. (2012). Mashrooteh Truth in Language Game of Iranian Society. Political Quarterly, 42(1), 81-98. DOI: 10.22059/Jpq.2012.29930. [In Persian]
Alem, A. A., & Pourpasha Kasin, A. (2011). Habermas Dialogic Democracy: Relation Factors. Political Quarterly, 41(1), 153-170. [In Persian]
AllahVaisi, G., Khoshkhoei, M., & Salahshori, A. (2018). Studying the Basics and Principles, and a Critique, of Wittgenstein's Language Game Theory from the Viewpoint of Allameh Tabatabai. Existence and Knowledge, 5(1), 83-108. [In Persian]
Ameli, S. (2013). Research Methods in Media and Cultural Studies. Tehran: University of Tehran Press. [In Persian]
Angrosino, M. (2017). Projects in Ethnographic Research. Trans. J. Rahmani and M. Rasouli. Tehran: Research Center For Culture, Art and Communications. [In Persian]
Bahrampour, S. (2008). Ethnography and its Application in Communications. Rasaneh, 19(1), 57-78. [In Persian]
Dastamooz, S., Mohammadi, M. (2016). Checking the Impact of Indirect Speech Acts with Interrogative Constructions on the Course of Dialogue from the Perspective of the Russian Language. Language Related Research, 7(1), 39-57. [In Persian]
Ghassemi, R. (2016). The role of play and linguistic games in Paludes and In search of lost time. Critical Language and Literary Studies, 12(16), 193-211. [In Persian]
Harsij, H., & Hajizadeh, J. (2010). An Explanation of Deliberative Democracy in Philosophical Thoughts of Habermas. Wisdom and Philosophy, 6(23), 75-93. DOI: 10.22054/Wph.2010.5810. [In Persian]
Hosseini-Maasoum, S. M., & Khavari, F. (2014). A Comparison of Speech Acts in Young Men’s and Women’s Persian SMSs Based on Searl’s Classification. Language and Linguistics, 10(19), 75-88. [In Persian]
Kalantari, A. (2012). Discourse: from Lingusitic, Philosophical, and Sociological Perspectives. Tehran: Jameshenasan. [In Persian]
Khaniki, H., & Kermani, H. (2019). The Study of Public Sphere and Communicative Action on Telegram: Applying Habermas' Notions on Iranian Journalists Conversations. New Media Studies, 5(19), 1-33. DOI: 10.22054/nms.2020.29762.422. [In Persian]
Khaniki, H., Atabak, M., & Azizi, F. (2017). The Situational Analysis of Virtual Social Networks in Iran by Habermasian’s Public Sphere Approach (Case Study: Several Facebook Groups). Journal of Culture-Communication Studies, 18(37), 101-130. DOI: 10.22083/jccs.2017.58105.1937. [In Persian]
Kheirabadi R. (2013). The Violation of Grice Cooperative Maxims and Its Role in Developing the Modern Generation of Iranian Jokes. Language Related Research, 4(3), 29-53. [In Persian]
Leet, N.. (2001). Habermas and Deliberative Democracy. Trans. M. Baratalipour. Nameh-Ye-Mofid, 6(4), 183-210. [In Persian]
Modarresi Tehrani, Y., & Tajali, M. (2013). The Request Speech Act: A Comparison between Persian Speakers and Persian Learners. Teaching Persian to Speakers of Other Languages, 1(2), 83-107. [In Persian]
Mohammadi, A. (2020). The Critique of the Theory of Language Games in Second Wittgenstein. Religious Thought, 19(73), 95-116. DOI: 10.22099/Jrt.2020.5558. [In Persian]
Monadi, M. (2007). Ethnography. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 13(51), 111-130. [In Persian]
Naderlew, B. (2011). Wittgenstein's Theory of Language Games: A Postmodern Philosophical Viewpoint of Language. Occidental Studies, 2(1), 87-100. [In Persian]
Naghibzade, M. A., Nowrozi, R. (2010).Analytic Study of Habermas’ View on Moral and Social Education Goals: Emphasizing on Communicative Action Theory. Applied Sociology, 21(1), 123-142. [In Persian]
NikuyBandari, H. (2021). Critical Analysis of the Deliberative School in Contemporary Human Rights Discourse with an Emphasize on John Rawls and Jürgen Habermas Thoughts. The Journal of Human Rights, 16(1), 149-171. DOI: 10.22096/hr.2020.110312.1148. [In Persian]
Noori, M. (2021). A Critique of Foundations of Habermas’ Theory of Communicative Action. Knowledge (Journal Of Human Sciences), 13(83/1), 245-265. [In Persian]
Paya, A. (2002). Analyzing Some Ideas of Late Wittgenstein’s’ for Social Sciences. Social Sciences Letter, 19(10), 167-203. [In Persian]
Pishghadam, R. (2008). Enhancing Critical Thinking with Literary Discussion. New Literary Studies, 40(4), 153-167. DOI: 10.22067/jls.v40i4.13175. [In Persian]
Pishghadam, R., Ataran, A. (2015). Delving into Speech Act of Argumentation in English and Persian Advertisements. Language Related Research, 6 (3), 45-64. [In Persian]
Qumi, M. (2013). The Influence of Wittgenstein's Language Games Theory on the Lyotard's Philosophy. Journal of Religious Thought, 5(16), 61-92. DOI: 10.22099/jrt.2013.1356. [In Persian]
Rabiee, A., Alikhani, Z., Gholami, F. (2012).An Analysis of Social and Political Weblogs with Public Sphere Theory. Global Media Journal, 7(2), 90-123. [In Persian]
Rezaii, H., & Dorakhshah, J. (2021). The Concept of Public Good and the Political Thought of Jürgen Habermas. Political Quarterly, 51(1), 153-179. DOI: 10.22059/jpq.2021.316293.1007726. [In Persian]
Samiee Esfahani, A., & Mirali, S. (2014). Deliberative Democracy, Social Movements and the World’s Public Sphere (on Jürgen Habermas’ Communicative Rationality). Political Quarterly, 44(2), 447-461. DOI: 10.22059/Jpq.2014.52401. [In Persian]
Schützeichel, R. (2012). Sociology of Communication. Trans. K. Rasekh. Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Shafaghi, M, & Tamimdari, A. (2015). A Study of the Speech Act of Apology Addressed to God (‘Repentance’) in Persian and Russian. Language Related Research,6 (5), 285-304. [In Persian]
Shafaghi, M. (2013). The Speech Act of “Promise” and “Promise in Political Discourse”. Language Related Research, 4(2), 141-158. [In Persian]
Shahbazi, R. (2020). The Mechanism of Wittgenstein’s Language-Games as a Social Criticism of Power in Siah-Bazi. Language Related Research (Comparative Language and Literature Research), 11(2), 235-256. [In Persian]
Sohrabnejad, A. H. (2016). A Study in the Language Games of Kurdish Oral Literature (Ilam). Culture and Folk Literature, 4 8), 45-69. [In Persian]
Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical Investigation. Trans. F. Fatemi. Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian]
Zarghani, M., & Akhlaghi, E. (2012). An Analysis of Shath by ‘Speech Act Theory’. Mystical Literature, 4(6), 61-80. DOI: 10.22051/jml.2013.86. [In Persian]
)