Marcin Lewiński
Dados Biográficos
| ID | 237399 |
|---|---|
| NOME | Marcin Lewiński |
| PRENOMES | Marcin |
| SOBRENOME | Lewiński |
| ASSINATURA | LEWIŃSKI M |
| AFILIAÇÕES | Universidade Nova de Lisboa |
| ORCID | 0000-0002-7218-3948 |
| VERIFICADO | Sim |
| TOTAL DE OBRAS | 12 |
| TOTAL DE CITAÇÕES | 20 |
| TOTAL COMO AUTOR | 11 |
| TOTAL COMO EDITOR | 1 |
| PRIMEIRO ANO DE PUBLICAÇÃO | 2012 |
| ANO MAIS RECENTE DE PUBLICAÇÃO | 2025 |
| ÍNDICE H | 2 |
One Concept of Argument
Part of the business of argumentation theory involves resolving a conceptual dispute over what argumentation and argument are in the first place. This dispute has produced various “concepts of argument.” The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to develop a complete ontology of argumentative phenomena, capable of accounting for various conceptions of argument—something, as I argue, that is badly wanting in argumentation theory; and, within this ont…
Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politi…
The Pandemic of Argumentation
This open access book addresses the current phenomena of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation using argumentation theory.
Challenging Authority with Argumentation
Authority is both a pragmatic condition of much public discourse and a form of argumentative appeal routinely used in it. The goal of this contribution is to propose a new account of challenging authority in argumentative discourse that benefits from the interplay of the resources of recent speech act theory and argumentation theory. Going beyond standard approaches of the two disciplines, the paper analyzes nuanced forms of establishing and, esp…
Illocutionary pluralism
Conclusions of Practical Argument
Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the class of assertives, such as hypotheses, predictions or estimates.What, however, are the conclusions of practical reasoning?Employing the concepts of speech act theory, in this paper I investigate which speech acts we perform when we're done with an instance of a practical argument and present its result in a linguistic form.To this end, I first offer a d…
Arguing in Portugal
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US resp…
Argumentation Theory
Argumentation theory investigates the practices and standards of using arguments. Argumentation is understood as a communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in the context of doubt or disagreement. It thus constitutes or contributes to a wide range of fundamental social processes, from political debates to legal disputes, scientific inquiry, and interpersonal conflicts. In contrast to much research within communication, argumenta…
Favorite Battlegrounds of Climate Action
This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to …
Managing disagreement through yes, but … constructions
The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but... constructions. Based on ( N = 22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but... constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialect…
When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account
Deliberate Design or Unintended Consequences
By looking at the argumentative uses of ‘status updates’, we discuss how Facebook design and context of use influenced opportunities for deliberation during the Egyptian phase of the Arab Spring in early 2011. Our basic point is that, somewhat against the grain of much debate on designing precise tools for supporting online argumentation, many benefits for open and critical argumentation result, in this case, from unintended, indeed parasitic, us…
Illocutionary pluralism
When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account
Arguing in Portugal
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US resp…
Conclusions of Practical Argument
Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the class of assertives, such as hypotheses, predictions or estimates.What, however, are the conclusions of practical reasoning?Employing the concepts of speech act theory, in this paper I investigate which speech acts we perform when we're done with an instance of a practical argument and present its result in a linguistic form.To this end, I first offer a d…
Favorite Battlegrounds of Climate Action
This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to …
Deliberate Design or Unintended Consequences
By looking at the argumentative uses of ‘status updates’, we discuss how Facebook design and context of use influenced opportunities for deliberation during the Egyptian phase of the Arab Spring in early 2011. Our basic point is that, somewhat against the grain of much debate on designing precise tools for supporting online argumentation, many benefits for open and critical argumentation result, in this case, from unintended, indeed parasitic, us…
When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account
Managing disagreement through yes, but … constructions
The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but... constructions. Based on ( N = 22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but... constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialect…
Argumentation Theory
Argumentation theory investigates the practices and standards of using arguments. Argumentation is understood as a communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in the context of doubt or disagreement. It thus constitutes or contributes to a wide range of fundamental social processes, from political debates to legal disputes, scientific inquiry, and interpersonal conflicts. In contrast to much research within communication, argumenta…
Favorite Battlegrounds of Climate Action
This article examines how two conflicting views regarding science-society relations—science as the arbiter of truth and as a social endeavor—perpetuate a tension in the way scientific consensus and evidence are called upon in climate change debate. In our analysis of interviews with climate change campaigners, we employ argumentation theory and social representations theory to identify and account for three discursive strategies of responding to …
Arguing in Portugal
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US resp…
Illocutionary pluralism
Conclusions of Practical Argument
Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the class of assertives, such as hypotheses, predictions or estimates.What, however, are the conclusions of practical reasoning?Employing the concepts of speech act theory, in this paper I investigate which speech acts we perform when we're done with an instance of a practical argument and present its result in a linguistic form.To this end, I first offer a d…
The Pandemic of Argumentation
This open access book addresses the current phenomena of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the epidemic of misinformation using argumentation theory.
Challenging Authority with Argumentation
Authority is both a pragmatic condition of much public discourse and a form of argumentative appeal routinely used in it. The goal of this contribution is to propose a new account of challenging authority in argumentative discourse that benefits from the interplay of the resources of recent speech act theory and argumentation theory. Going beyond standard approaches of the two disciplines, the paper analyzes nuanced forms of establishing and, esp…
Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politi…
One Concept of Argument
Part of the business of argumentation theory involves resolving a conceptual dispute over what argumentation and argument are in the first place. This dispute has produced various “concepts of argument.” The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to develop a complete ontology of argumentative phenomena, capable of accounting for various conceptions of argument—something, as I argue, that is badly wanting in argumentation theory; and, within this ont…
Epistemology (11 obras) · Argumentation theory (9 obras) · Sociology (9 obras) · Philosophy (8 obras) · Political science (8 obras) · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics (5 obras) · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies (5 obras) · Law (5 obras) · Linguistics (5 obras) · Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation (5 obras)