Butler, and to the Berkeley Language Center for investing in me and appartenenze naturali per avviare un processo di rigenerazione. politics' inability to encompass absolute totality, while still investing raccolti ma gli sta a cuore mettere in evidenza l'affioramento di quelle cifre. L'ANALISI LINGUISTICA E LETTERARIA Facoltà di Scienze linguistiche e (M&As): evidence from investors and analysts conference calls. WORLD CUP TOP SCORERS BETTING CALCULATOR

This led to the evolution and accumulation through history, in many cultures, of a large and diversified body of wisdom concerning the management and resolution of conflicts of all kinds. This wisdom comprises an enlightening repertoire of variations on our theme, which are useful to this day. This ancient and ever growing treasury contains much material relevant for the theme of this paper in general, and particularly for the development of a dialectic of tolerance.

The fourth and final point I want to mention is essential for justifying the belief that developing a dialectic of tolerance capable to help resolving apparently unsolvable conflicts is not an ungrounded, utopian dream. Recent advances in the study of rationality and its evolution have, slowly but steadily, led to models of cognition and action other than the traditional logic-based paragon of rationality.

By this expression, I mean roughly forms of rational reasoning and behavior that, though not relying on the capacity to make inferences with deductive or quasi-deductive certainty and act upon their conclusions, are not condemned, for this reason, to be demoted to the realm of the irrational.

Nowhere the need of acknowledging this truth and of further developing the dialectic of tolerance needed to implement it is more evident than in those 11 On these two pragmatic strategies, their uses and their consequences, see Dascal b. References Achinstein, Peter Concepts of Science: A Philosophical Analysis. Berti, Enrico Contraddizione e dialettica negli antichi e nei moderni. Buber, Martin The Knowledge of Man.

Edited with an Introductory Essay by M. Translated by R. Corns, Thomas N. London: Frank Cass. Dascal, Marcelo a. Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. Dascal, Marcelo b. The study of controversies and the theory and history of science. Science in Context 11 2 : Dascal, Marcelo Leibniz and epistemological diversity.

In: Lamarra, A. Palaia eds. Roma: Leo S. Olschki Editore, In: Poser, H. Nihil sine ratione Proceedings of the VII. Internationaler Leibniz Kongress. Berlin: Leibniz Gesellschaft, Interpretation and Understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

In: Dascal, M. Leibniz: What Kind of Rationalist?. Dordrecht: Springer, Dichotomies and types of debates. In: Eemeren, F. Garssen eds. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In: Verschueren, J. Pragmatics at Issue. Fumaroli, Marc Paris: Albin Michel. Santos Alonso ed. Madrid: Catedra. Graham, Angus C. Hettema, Theo L. Religious Polemics in Context. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Leibniz, Gottfried W. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. The Art of Controversies. Edited with an Introductory Essay and translated by M. Dordrecht: Springer. Lloyd, Geoffry E. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lo Cascio, Vincenzo Firenze: La Nuova Italia. MacCormick, Neil Argumentation and interpretation in law. Argumentation 9: Mendes-Flohr, Paul Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Rawls, John Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Schopenhauer, Arthur []. Eristische Dialektik oder Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten.

Leipzig: Brockhaus. English transl. Saunders The Art of Controversy. In: Complete Essays of Schopenhauer. New York: Wiley. Stati, Sorin Repetition in literary dialogues. In: Bazzanella, C. Repetition in Dialogue. Le texte argumentatif. Stump, Eleonore Dialectic and its Place in the Development of Medieval Logic. Sun Tzu [4th century BC]. Wang, from S.

Paris: Flammarion. Thiebaut, Carlos De la tolerancia. Madrid: Visor. Particular linguistic practices are shaped by and help to shape social, historical and cultural conventions, which become apparent in intertextual and metadiscursive patterns, as well as in collocations and co-selections of lexis and grammar.

Due to the complexity and interdependence of these specific elements, there is a close and often overlapping relationship between the dialogue in the private sphere and the dialogue in the public sphere. As was shown in Ilie , the talk show, as a subgenre of media discourse, exhibits dialogue features belonging both to the private sphere conversational dialogue and to the public sphere institutional dialogue. Nevertheless, it is hardly possible to draw a line between conversational and institutional aspects of talk shows since «conversational talk often acquires certain institutional characteristics, while conversely, institutional talk may exhibit a more conversational character» Ilie A closer examination of various instantiations of dialogue in the public sphere can reveal three main subtypes: dialogue within institutions e.

The media interview has become a prototypical form of media dialogue performed for the benefit of the public at large. By virtue of its own nature, the media interview is a very complex form of interview in that it enables interviewers, on the one hand, and interviewees, on the other, to gain access to the public arena and to promote their respective agendas. Moreover, the interviewer acts in a double capacity: as media representative with a particular institutional agenda to follow, and as a representative of the public at large with another, more open, agenda to follow.

In terms of discourse structure and form, the media interview lies at the interface between institutional and non-institutional conversational forms of talk. Thus, the news interview can be regarded as a more strongly institutionalised discourse type than the talk show, because it appears to be more constrained by institutional role-distribution and predictable turn pre-allocation and less prone to spontaneous interventions.

Aim and method Both media dialogue and political dialogue have acquired increasing importance in many areas of postmodern society. As a result, both types of dialogue can be seen to attract large audiences and to involve a continuously increasing number of people. At the same time, both types of dialogue are undergoing a process of convergence, in that political dialogue is becoming increasingly mediatised, whereas media dialogue is increasingly concerned with politics and the mediatisation process is being shaped accordingly.

An important percentage of media interviews are political interviews. A particular subcategory of political interviews which has been less researched is the election campaign interview. This is a rather complex form of interview since it displays features of at least two types of interviews: political interviews and job interviews. In an election campaign interview the interviewer and the interviewee have to perform more than one role.

Thus, the interviewer can be seen as a talk monitor, as an investigator, as a questioner, as an interlocutor. The interviewee, i. For the purposes of the present study I have chosen to examine interviews with the two Democratic presidential candidates in the American presidential election campaign, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The analytical approach uses the tools of pragma-rhetoric Ilie , Ilie forthcoming by focusing on multifunctional communicative acts and on multi-voiced rhetorical acts of information elicitation and argumentative persuasion.

Dialogic practices in the media have become increasingly complex and this is why their analysis requires trans-disciplinary perspectives. Pragmatics and rhetoric are two complementary perspectives that are integrated in one analytical framework in order to examine the emergence and the co-construction of ongoing interpersonal communication and behaviour. The interview tradition — a brief survey Nowadays most of us take for granted the use of the interview as a form of media interaction meant to provide the intended audience with news and information of public and private interest.

However, it is important to bear in mind that the interview tradition, which has become the staple form of media discourse, represents a development of the 20th century. For example, the interview was almost entirely absent from the cinematic tradition before the s and its technique and structure have changed significantly over time.

On reporting on the emergence of the new interview technique, the BBC documentary-maker Swallow signalled a significant fact: the professional expert was replaced by the enquiring reporter, a man whose initial knowledge is no greater than that of the viewer on whose behalf he conducts the enquiry. The reporter asks the questions that a sensible layman would ask.

This renewed role cast of the interviewer has gradually resulted in a blurred boundary between the public and the private sphere with regard to the scope and focus of the interviewing process. Thus, most interviewees, including high profile ones, are nowadays also faced with questions concerning rather personal details with respect to their private lives, hobbies, leisure, etc.

Definitions like these are meant to outline the basic nature and function of interviews, but do not provide further insights into the various aspects of the interviewing process. According to the authors, interviewers have well-defined goal-oriented interactional and institutional tasks in keeping with the principle of neutrality. It is, after all, the interviewer who has control over the questionasking process and the liberty to reiterate or rephrase certain questions in order to elicit a particular answer.

To what extent have the institutionalised conventions being kept in place and to what extent have they changed? Have new conventions been adopted? What about the roles of the interviewer and the interviewee? A number of scholars have explored the institutional features of media interviews, such as questioning-answering patterns Harris , Bull , Ilie , evasive interviewee responses Harris , turn-taking mechanisms Heritage , Blum-Kulka , Greatbatch , topical organisation and interview roles Greatbatch , Corner , footing and interviewer neutrality Clayman and interruptions Beattie et alii , Ilie Some of the central goals of the interview have partly changed over time.

Initially, the purpose of the interview was to provide information, official and less official, about institutions, institutional activities and institutional actors, to the public at large. The end-goal was to help form public opinion and set the political agenda.

Gradually, the interviewer started scrutinising, on behalf of the wider public, the efficiency of institutional actors and the way in which institutional activities are being carried out. This double role of the interviewer, i. During the post-modern period the interview has increasingly become a double-edged communication tool used to handle information circulating to and from the citizens, to form and reflect public opinion and to set the public and political agenda jointly with representatives of the public.

Dialogue frameworks in political interviews A political interview aims at investigating political matters having to do with the daily work of politicians in general, and of Government and Administration representatives in particular. A political interview involves interactional moves, which assign pre-established roles to interviewer and interviewee, and commit the interviewer and the interviewee to particular rights and obligations in relation to institutional conventions, on the one hand, and to the intended audience, on the other.

The dialogue in a political interview presupposes a certain shared knowledge between interviewer and interviewee, and between them and the wider overhearing audience. An important task of the interviewer is to elicit relevant factual information and to try to correlate it with specifically elicited personal information regarding the interviewed politician.

Like other types of media interviews, the political interview is a hybrid subgenre of mediatised dialogue in that it displays features of both a social encounter dialogue and a mediated probing dialogue. The former type of dialogue allows for free turn-taking and spontaneous role shift as in casual conversation , whereas the latter is expected to follow normative institutional rules for verbal interaction and behaviour in the public sphere. Through a convergence of these two types of dialogue, the political interview is an instantiation of a semi-institutionalised dialogue at the interface of rule-based answer-eliciting questioning dialogue and casual conversational dialogue.

An important subcategory of political interviews is the election campaign interview, which is specifically aimed at scrutinising and challenging political candidates, at unveiling their status and power relations, at exposing their strengths and weaknesses, at inducing them to publicly spell out their political commitments.

In doing that, election campaign interviews enable interviewees to gain access to the public arena and to promote their own political agendas in order to reach and persuade a large number of electors. Ideally, election campaign interviews are meant to provide citizens with the opportunity to receive continuously updated information about the election candidates, details about their past political activities, current initiatives and future visions. A less explored aspect about election campaign interviews concerns the ways in which they act as institutional platforms providing political candidates with the opportunity to market themselves by showing why they deserve to be elected to the political position they are competing for.

This aspect has considerable significance if we regard the election campaign interview as a hybrid interview which exhibits features of both a political interview and a job interview. It is not surprising, therefore, that election campaign interviews should attract greater interest than other political interviews. This is particularly noticeable in a country like the United States, where presidential election campaigns tend to attract as much interest abroad as at home.

Interviews with the American Democratic presidential candidates The present study focuses on interviews with the two democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — in the American presidential election, which has been regarded as a historic political event both inside and outside the United States. For a number of reasons, the race for the White House in the campaign was by far harsher and more spectacular between the two Democratic candidates than between the Democratic and the Republican candidates.

Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, has been in the public eye on the national level for a period of sixteen years. This may explain why, fairly or unfairly, most people have formed an opinion about her. By struggling to get control over the discourse, each of the two presidential candidates were keen on imposing their own socio-political agenda and their own perceptions of the events.

By taking into account the central issues of the election campaign, I decided to examine a set of two interviews conducted with Clinton and Obama separately. Environmental and energy issues featured prominently at the beginning of the election campaign. What makes the two interviews very appropriate for a comparative study is the fact that most questions are identical or very similar. So both candidates are expected to provide answers to the same or similar questions. What sets your energy and environmental platform apart?

A: I believe my proposals for energy and environmental priorities are really well thought-out and comprehensive. You know, I have been focusing on these issues for years. What sets your green platform apart from the rest? A: To begin with, people can look at my track record, I am proud of the fact that one of the first endorsements I received in the race for the U.

Senate was from the League of Conservation Voters. They reveal that neither candidate has been a particularly strong champion of environmental issues. Clinton refers in general terms to her political proposals and to her focus on energy environmental priorities. A more concrete element is her having served on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Senate from the League of Conservation Voters. However, although neither candidate has a very strong environmental profile, both candidates are rhetorically skilful and know how to maximise their respective strengths and to turn weaknesses into strengths. Since he has not managed to accomplish too many things in the field of energy and environment, Obama is trying to turn this disadvantage into an advantage, namely the fact that he is still an average American who has not distanced himself from ordinary people.

Is this a centerpiece of your platform? A: It is. I joined with Sens. And obviously I have my own proposals. I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would be funded by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund.

We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America. Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for that, as do activists in the environmental community and outlets like Grist. People recognize the magnitude of the climate problem. However, the ways in which they position themselves as political frontrunners on energy issues differ considerably.

As an experienced politician with a substantial track record, Clinton speaks in the 1st person singular about her past and present actions, as well as about her future intentions: «I joined», «I thought», «I have my own proposals», «I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund». However, when referring to future legislative measures, she switches from the 1st person singular pronoun to the 1st person plural pronoun so as to show her commitment to working in a team: «We would take away their tax subsidies», «we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America».

Although Obama is self-assured as a politician, he avoids using the 1st person singular pronoun, which may be explained both factually and tactically. First, he is aware that his is not a very long political career and therefore his past achievements are not so numerous, so he should tone down foregrounding himself; second, he is fully aware that he owes his quickly growing popularity to the people who are supporting him, be they close collaborators or ordinary citizens.

As a corollary, towards the end of this answer Obama uses the 1st person plural pronoun to include all those actively involved in shaping the new energy legislation: «we have to move boldly on energy legislation». It is significant to note that although the two presidential candidates do share a lot of farsighted commitments and envisage similar measures for a future environmental legislation, they address these issues in different ways and from different perspectives.

Clinton has a lot to show with regard to her past activities and initiatives as an experienced politician and as a White House insider. This is why it is but natural for her to self-refer in the 1st person singular. Having a more limited experience as a professional politician and executive leader, Obama maximises instead his close connections with the grassroots, enhancing his image as a politician who is used to speaking with and to listen to the citizens.

To use a musical metaphor, whereas Clinton is emphasising her qualities as a gifted soloist, Obama is enhancing his profile as an orchestra conductor. They obviously appeal to and grasp the attention of different categories of voters: Clinton appeals to a more senior and homogeneous audience, whereas Obama appeals to a younger, more heterogeneous audience.

While they express similar views and their answers contain comparable messages, their rhetorical strategies differ significantly. As a result, they are perceived differently by voters. Will you fight the political battles needed to move the consensus on this issue, even if that means aggravating partisan rifts?

But I believe that we can put together a strong majority to move forward, as long as we are thoughtful about the potential losers in any big piece of energy legislation. This tendency becomes apparent both in his speeches and in his public declarations. Obama avoids giving a straightforward answer. However, in order to uphold his rhetorical ethos especially his credibility , he needs to re-adjust his rhetorical logos: and he does this by concentrating on word semantics.

His statement obviously begs the question: what does then consensus actually mean? A: I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently. I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove one way or another. The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal — of which we have a great and abundant supply in America — is not going away.

So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards? It is not going to do us any good if we substitute one dirty energy source for another. A: I think with presidential leadership we can meet this goal, and it will be one of my top priorities.

But it is going to require a thoughtful approach that accounts for the possibility that electricity prices will go up, and that lowincome people may need to be compensated. In example 4 above it is enlightening to see how the issue of «carbon sequestration» is tackled rhetorically by Hillary Clinton and by Barack Obama, respectively.

This message is reinforced in her immediately following statements: «I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently». While Clinton can report that she has already advocated carbon sequestration, Obama is still cautious about committing himself to investing in carbon sequestration.

His main concern is striking the right balance between the burdens and the benefits «of a strong environmental policy», to make it possible to receive the endorsement of the «people»: «If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way».

Obama shows that he is reluctant to take measures before they are understood and accepted by ordinary people. Clinton displays a strong conviction and a determination to motivate people. To emphasise the big dilemma «of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards» she resorts to a rhetorical question: «So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards?

In this particular instance, Clinton uses the 1st person plural pronoun «we» because she wants her audience to get mentally involved and to become aware of the difficult decisions that a political leader, like the president, is normally faced with. The same dilemma that is conveyed by Clinton in a rhetorical question is presented by Obama as a logical problem by means of a conditional inference: «If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way».

But, as in the answers he gave to the questions in examples 1 , 2 and 3 , Obama refers to people as directly involved agents: «people will want to see us take on this problem». He referred less to himself and more to his audience — the public at large —, which shows that he knows how to truly engage with and connect with people.

The dichotomy of change represented by Obama versus experience represented by Clinton was a common theme in the presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton positioning herself as the candidate with experience and Obama enacting the role of the candidate set on bringing change to Washington. The pragma-rhetorical analysis of the interviews with Clinton and Obama carried out in this paper provides comparative insights into the linguistic framing characteristic of each of the two presidential candidates.

Conclusions For the present study I chose to examine a set of interviews carried out with the two Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — during the American presidential election campaign. It was a historic campaign in many respects. The two democratic presidential candidates were running a very tight race and thereby a very demanding campaign. From several viewpoints they instantiate difference in similarity, and similarity in difference: two highly eligible presidential candidates who were repeatedly being evaluated by the media in terms of campaigning and voting results, as well as discourse and activity performance.

The election campaign interview can be seen to exhibit features of both a political interview and a job interview. The analysis has focused on the answers provided by the two candidates to identical or similar questions posed by the same interviewer.

The comparability of questions has contributed to a systematic and consistent examination of the similarities and differences between Clinton and Obama in terms of topic framing, leadership role, personal achievements, future visions. While at first sight the two candidates appear to display similar and compatible standpoints and attitudes, their language use reveals differences in the focus and strength of their commitments, their political priorities, their relations with the voters, and their rapport with the interviewer.

References Beattie, G. Pearson Why is Mrs. Thatcher interrupted so often? Nature Blum-Kulka The dynamics of political interviews. Text 3 2 : Bull, Peter On identifying questions, replies and nonreplies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology Chilton, Paul Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Clayman, Steven E. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse.

In: Drew, P. Heritage eds. Talk at work. Corbett, Edward P. Connors Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press. Corner, John The interview as social encounter. In: Scannell P. Broadcast talk. London: Sage. Greatbatch, David Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees.

Media, Culture and Society 8 4 : A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language in Society On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Drew P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Harris, Sandra Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In: Scannell, P. London: Sage, Heritage, John Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: van Dijk, T. Handbook of discourse analysis, 3: Discourse and dialogue.

London: Academic Press, Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In: Glenn, P. Mandelbaum eds. Studies in language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Roth Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview.

Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 1 : Hymes, Dell On communicative competence. In: Pride J. Holmes eds. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Ilie, Cornelia Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31 8 , Interruption patterns in British parliamentary debates and drama dialogue.

In: Betten, A. Dannerer eds. Towards a pragma-rhetorical approach: From rhetoric to pragmatics and beyond. In: Thorat, A. Strategies of refutation by definition: A pragma-rhetorical approach to refutations in a public speech.

Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues. Berlin: Springer. Levinson, Stephen C Activity types and language. Linguistics 17, Silverman, David Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction.

Swallow, N. Documentary TV journalism. In Rotha, P. Television in the making. London: Focal Press, The purposes of the paper This paper pertains to a research project1 which aims at focusing on the constitution of arguments by taking into account, beside the debate on this theme developed by contemporary argumentation theorists, the important contribution given by the Topical tradition. My first objective here is to bring to light the role played by semantic analysis of inferential rules in an adequate approach to argument schemes.

Here, a deep semantic analysis of the whole-parts relation, which specifies the categories of properties that are transferable or non-transferable from the whole to the parts and vice-versa, allows to define the proper interpretation in which the concerned argument scheme is valid. A strict connection between the argument schemes and the semantic-ontological level of discourse emerges. Interestingly, the Topics tradition, especially in its Medieval phase, shows to have acquired a clear awareness of this connection.

In fact, in the debate about locus, a relevant distinction emerged between locus maxima, then simply named maxima, a notion very close to the current notion of argumentative principle, and locus differentia maximae, later named locus, understood as the semantic-ontological relation habitudo , like causality, alternativity, analogy, implication etc. It emerges that one locus may produce one or more maxims; in other words, the same ontological relation creates different implications inferential rules.

In this paper, I will sketch such an analysis for the locus a causa finali, developing an ontology of action from which various maxims may be derived. The validity of maxims is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the constitution of arguments; the Aristotelian notion of endoxon, which was substantially neglected by the Medieval scholars2, proves to identify an essential component bound to the context and its culture of the constituency of arguments, which conditions their soundness and effectiveness.

The reintegration of this notion in the analysis of arguments is all the more required for the study of how argumentation works in the different contexts of its application Rigotti Their analysis shows that not all properties predicates can be transferred from the parts to the whole and vice-versa. The transferability of predicates depends on their semantic nature: structure-dependent properties are not transferable and, among the structure-independent properties, only the absolute — non-relative — properties3 can be transferred.

As regards the relative structure-independent properties like heavy, light, fat, big, their non-transferability depends on the fact that they involve the whole not focusing on its structure, but implicitly comparing it with other entities considered under the same point of view; thus their scope involves the concerned reality in its wholeness: a big heap of light things say of hay may be intolerably heavy.

I reproduce, in order to sum up the analysis made by van Eemeren and Grootendorst, the scheme they offer in the paper mentioned above. Hamblin introduces an analogous distinction between physical and functional collections. Peter of Spain Summulae Logicales 5. Interesting remarks are put fore by Buridan Summulae de dialectica 6. They show that precise semantic conditions must be met in order to ensure the validity of this argument scheme.

In fact, I am convinced that the fallacious or sound use of argument schemes is often not determined by their presumptive or probabilistic nature, but by an uncertain definition of their semantic applicability conditions. I shall try to show how an adequate representation of the ontology of action that is presupposed by the concerned locus from final cause can explain its fallacious interpretations and establish the limits of its applicability.

The conceptual and theoretical framework of Topics In order to properly lay out the subject we want to face, it is certainly useful, and maybe also necessary, to recall in its essential features the conceptual and theoretical framework on which my discourse will be based. I shall prevailingly refer to the doctrine of topics set out by Aristotle, elaborated by Cicero and systematized by Boethius, Abelard, Peter of Spain, Buridan and others.

Topics was thought of by Aristotle as a method for finding out an appropriate argument in relation to any standpoint problema 4. This method works with rules named topoi translated into Latin with loci. It is well known that there is not a universally accepted interpretation of this Aristotelian notion, for which, by the way, no satisfactory definition is given by Aristotle. Braet offers an important contribution to a convincing interpretation of the Aristotelian perspective.

Starting from the lacunose presentations of loci given by Aristotle in Rhetoric 2. In the following tradition the role of this apparent label — as Braet foreshadows in a note Braet 81 n. This emphasis on locus as the source and basis of an argumentative move is interestingly mirrored by the typical preposition from introducing any class of arguments e.

In the following topical tradition, Boethius, who critically synthesized the two interpretations of Aristotelian topics offered by Cicero and Themistius, designates this component as topica differentia, which is to be understood as the particular ontological domain to which certain inferential principles named maximae propositiones are bound. In other words, loci are differences of maxims because they are implementations in different ontological domains of the same logical connections.

The awareness that maxims are more numerous than loci is anyway implicitly acknowledged by all authors through the list of loci and maxims they offer. Indeed, between the set of maxims and the set of loci, an injective function is established: to each maxim corresponds exactly one locus, while to each locus may correspond one or more maxims.

For instance, several maxims are bound to the Locus a causa materiali by the Topical tradition: If the material lacks, the thing is impossible; If the material is there the thing can exist too; If the thing is there the material is there or was there7. Loci as semantic-ontological relationships The proper nature of loci emerges, gradually, through the Medieval tradition, where, at a certain moment, locus-difference is presented as one extreme of a relation in Latin habitudo , whose other extreme coincides with the standpoint itself.

For example, the locus from cause is the extreme of a cause-to-effect relation whose other extreme — the effect — is the standpoint. Peter of Spain wrote: Locus a causa efficiente est habitudo ipsius ad suum effectum [The locus from efficient cause is the relation of the efficient cause to its effect] In the locus from definition, the relation concerned ties together the definition i.

Locus a definitione est habitudo definitionis ad definitum 5. Let us consider some passages by Abelard and Buridan in which some relevant consequences of the interpretation of locus as extreme s of a habitudo are brought to light. Abelard connects with the habitudo the solidity of inference: Est autem locus differentiae ea res in cuius habitudine ad aliam firmitas consecutionis consistit De dialectica, [locus difference is that thing on whose relation to another thing the solidity of the inference is based].

Starting from this fundamental comment by Buridan, I suggest the following updated interpretation of locus in its connection with maxims: The locus is a specific relation connecting different states of affairs that generates one or more maxims, providing them with semantic transparency notitia and with a specific degree of analytical truth veritas and persuasiveness efficacia.

The interpretation of loci as ontological relations habitudines generating argument schemes entails the task of deriving each argument scheme from the respective topical relation. In the mentioned authors this derivation shows to work as an implication of the ontology of the locus. All argument schemes, or maxims, related to a locus are validly applied only if the conceptual domain actually involved by the argument really exhibits the logical properties of the locus.

Very often, as we saw at the beginning of this paper for the locus from the whole and its parts, a similar linguistic shape hides substantial differences. Indeed French economy is not a species, but a part of European economy, which is in turn a whole to which the structure-dependent property of having strongly reacted Several maxims are generated by this locus.

Indeed, artificial intelligence appears to be at the basis of a renewed interest for practical teleological reasoning in philosophy Walton 3. Walton identifies two basic argument schemes of practical reasoning Walton 48 and : the necessary condition and the sufficient condition schemes. It is, after all, the interviewer who has control over the questionasking process and the liberty to reiterate or rephrase certain questions in order to elicit a particular answer. To what extent have the institutionalised conventions being kept in place and to what extent have they changed?

Have new conventions been adopted? What about the roles of the interviewer and the interviewee? A number of scholars have explored the institutional features of media interviews, such as questioning-answering patterns Harris , Bull , Ilie , evasive interviewee responses Harris , turn-taking mechanisms Heritage , Blum-Kulka , Greatbatch , topical organisation and interview roles Greatbatch , Corner , footing and interviewer neutrality Clayman and interruptions Beattie et alii , Ilie Some of the central goals of the interview have partly changed over time.

Initially, the purpose of the interview was to provide information, official and less official, about institutions, institutional activities and institutional actors, to the public at large. The end-goal was to help form public opinion and set the political agenda. Gradually, the interviewer started scrutinising, on behalf of the wider public, the efficiency of institutional actors and the way in which institutional activities are being carried out.

This double role of the interviewer, i. During the post-modern period the interview has increasingly become a double-edged communication tool used to handle information circulating to and from the citizens, to form and reflect public opinion and to set the public and political agenda jointly with representatives of the public. Dialogue frameworks in political interviews A political interview aims at investigating political matters having to do with the daily work of politicians in general, and of Government and Administration representatives in particular.

A political interview involves interactional moves, which assign pre-established roles to interviewer and interviewee, and commit the interviewer and the interviewee to particular rights and obligations in relation to institutional conventions, on the one hand, and to the intended audience, on the other.

The dialogue in a political interview presupposes a certain shared knowledge between interviewer and interviewee, and between them and the wider overhearing audience. An important task of the interviewer is to elicit relevant factual information and to try to correlate it with specifically elicited personal information regarding the interviewed politician.

Like other types of media interviews, the political interview is a hybrid subgenre of mediatised dialogue in that it displays features of both a social encounter dialogue and a mediated probing dialogue. The former type of dialogue allows for free turn-taking and spontaneous role shift as in casual conversation , whereas the latter is expected to follow normative institutional rules for verbal interaction and behaviour in the public sphere.

Through a convergence of these two types of dialogue, the political interview is an instantiation of a semi-institutionalised dialogue at the interface of rule-based answer-eliciting questioning dialogue and casual conversational dialogue. An important subcategory of political interviews is the election campaign interview, which is specifically aimed at scrutinising and challenging political candidates, at unveiling their status and power relations, at exposing their strengths and weaknesses, at inducing them to publicly spell out their political commitments.

In doing that, election campaign interviews enable interviewees to gain access to the public arena and to promote their own political agendas in order to reach and persuade a large number of electors. Ideally, election campaign interviews are meant to provide citizens with the opportunity to receive continuously updated information about the election candidates, details about their past political activities, current initiatives and future visions.

A less explored aspect about election campaign interviews concerns the ways in which they act as institutional platforms providing political candidates with the opportunity to market themselves by showing why they deserve to be elected to the political position they are competing for.

This aspect has considerable significance if we regard the election campaign interview as a hybrid interview which exhibits features of both a political interview and a job interview. It is not surprising, therefore, that election campaign interviews should attract greater interest than other political interviews. This is particularly noticeable in a country like the United States, where presidential election campaigns tend to attract as much interest abroad as at home.

Interviews with the American Democratic presidential candidates The present study focuses on interviews with the two democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — in the American presidential election, which has been regarded as a historic political event both inside and outside the United States. For a number of reasons, the race for the White House in the campaign was by far harsher and more spectacular between the two Democratic candidates than between the Democratic and the Republican candidates.

Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady, has been in the public eye on the national level for a period of sixteen years. This may explain why, fairly or unfairly, most people have formed an opinion about her. By struggling to get control over the discourse, each of the two presidential candidates were keen on imposing their own socio-political agenda and their own perceptions of the events.

By taking into account the central issues of the election campaign, I decided to examine a set of two interviews conducted with Clinton and Obama separately. Environmental and energy issues featured prominently at the beginning of the election campaign. What makes the two interviews very appropriate for a comparative study is the fact that most questions are identical or very similar.

So both candidates are expected to provide answers to the same or similar questions. What sets your energy and environmental platform apart? A: I believe my proposals for energy and environmental priorities are really well thought-out and comprehensive. You know, I have been focusing on these issues for years.

What sets your green platform apart from the rest? A: To begin with, people can look at my track record, I am proud of the fact that one of the first endorsements I received in the race for the U. Senate was from the League of Conservation Voters. They reveal that neither candidate has been a particularly strong champion of environmental issues.

Clinton refers in general terms to her political proposals and to her focus on energy environmental priorities. A more concrete element is her having served on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Senate from the League of Conservation Voters. However, although neither candidate has a very strong environmental profile, both candidates are rhetorically skilful and know how to maximise their respective strengths and to turn weaknesses into strengths.

Since he has not managed to accomplish too many things in the field of energy and environment, Obama is trying to turn this disadvantage into an advantage, namely the fact that he is still an average American who has not distanced himself from ordinary people.

Is this a centerpiece of your platform? A: It is. I joined with Sens. And obviously I have my own proposals. I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund that would be funded by taking money away from the oil companies, by giving them the choice to invest in renewable energy or pay into the fund.

We would take away their tax subsidies as well, and we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America. Al Gore deserves a lot of credit for that, as do activists in the environmental community and outlets like Grist. People recognize the magnitude of the climate problem.

However, the ways in which they position themselves as political frontrunners on energy issues differ considerably. As an experienced politician with a substantial track record, Clinton speaks in the 1st person singular about her past and present actions, as well as about her future intentions: «I joined», «I thought», «I have my own proposals», «I want to create a Strategic Energy Fund». However, when referring to future legislative measures, she switches from the 1st person singular pronoun to the 1st person plural pronoun so as to show her commitment to working in a team: «We would take away their tax subsidies», «we would use this fund to create a clean-energy industry and millions of jobs in America».

Although Obama is self-assured as a politician, he avoids using the 1st person singular pronoun, which may be explained both factually and tactically. First, he is aware that his is not a very long political career and therefore his past achievements are not so numerous, so he should tone down foregrounding himself; second, he is fully aware that he owes his quickly growing popularity to the people who are supporting him, be they close collaborators or ordinary citizens.

As a corollary, towards the end of this answer Obama uses the 1st person plural pronoun to include all those actively involved in shaping the new energy legislation: «we have to move boldly on energy legislation». It is significant to note that although the two presidential candidates do share a lot of farsighted commitments and envisage similar measures for a future environmental legislation, they address these issues in different ways and from different perspectives.

Clinton has a lot to show with regard to her past activities and initiatives as an experienced politician and as a White House insider. This is why it is but natural for her to self-refer in the 1st person singular. Having a more limited experience as a professional politician and executive leader, Obama maximises instead his close connections with the grassroots, enhancing his image as a politician who is used to speaking with and to listen to the citizens.

To use a musical metaphor, whereas Clinton is emphasising her qualities as a gifted soloist, Obama is enhancing his profile as an orchestra conductor. They obviously appeal to and grasp the attention of different categories of voters: Clinton appeals to a more senior and homogeneous audience, whereas Obama appeals to a younger, more heterogeneous audience. While they express similar views and their answers contain comparable messages, their rhetorical strategies differ significantly.

As a result, they are perceived differently by voters. Will you fight the political battles needed to move the consensus on this issue, even if that means aggravating partisan rifts? But I believe that we can put together a strong majority to move forward, as long as we are thoughtful about the potential losers in any big piece of energy legislation.

This tendency becomes apparent both in his speeches and in his public declarations. Obama avoids giving a straightforward answer. However, in order to uphold his rhetorical ethos especially his credibility , he needs to re-adjust his rhetorical logos: and he does this by concentrating on word semantics. His statement obviously begs the question: what does then consensus actually mean? A: I think we have got to take a hard look at clean coal. I have advocated carbon sequestration, I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently.

I doubt very much that using coal in liquid form for transportation could ever pass the environmental test, but I am willing to do the research to prove one way or another. The political pressure [to use coal] will remain intense, and I think you have got to admit that coal — of which we have a great and abundant supply in America — is not going away. So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards?

It is not going to do us any good if we substitute one dirty energy source for another. A: I think with presidential leadership we can meet this goal, and it will be one of my top priorities. But it is going to require a thoughtful approach that accounts for the possibility that electricity prices will go up, and that lowincome people may need to be compensated.

In example 4 above it is enlightening to see how the issue of «carbon sequestration» is tackled rhetorically by Hillary Clinton and by Barack Obama, respectively. This message is reinforced in her immediately following statements: «I have advocated power plants looking for ways to use coal more cleanly and efficiently».

While Clinton can report that she has already advocated carbon sequestration, Obama is still cautious about committing himself to investing in carbon sequestration. His main concern is striking the right balance between the burdens and the benefits «of a strong environmental policy», to make it possible to receive the endorsement of the «people»: «If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way».

Obama shows that he is reluctant to take measures before they are understood and accepted by ordinary people. Clinton displays a strong conviction and a determination to motivate people. To emphasise the big dilemma «of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards» she resorts to a rhetorical question: «So how do we best manage the possibility of using clean coal, but having very strict environmental standards?

In this particular instance, Clinton uses the 1st person plural pronoun «we» because she wants her audience to get mentally involved and to become aware of the difficult decisions that a political leader, like the president, is normally faced with. The same dilemma that is conveyed by Clinton in a rhetorical question is presented by Obama as a logical problem by means of a conditional inference: «If we make sure that the burdens and benefits of a strong environmental policy are evenly spread across the economy, then people will want to see us take on this problem in an aggressive way».

But, as in the answers he gave to the questions in examples 1 , 2 and 3 , Obama refers to people as directly involved agents: «people will want to see us take on this problem». He referred less to himself and more to his audience — the public at large —, which shows that he knows how to truly engage with and connect with people.

The dichotomy of change represented by Obama versus experience represented by Clinton was a common theme in the presidential campaign, with Hillary Clinton positioning herself as the candidate with experience and Obama enacting the role of the candidate set on bringing change to Washington.

The pragma-rhetorical analysis of the interviews with Clinton and Obama carried out in this paper provides comparative insights into the linguistic framing characteristic of each of the two presidential candidates. Conclusions For the present study I chose to examine a set of interviews carried out with the two Democratic presidential candidates — Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama — during the American presidential election campaign.

It was a historic campaign in many respects. The two democratic presidential candidates were running a very tight race and thereby a very demanding campaign. From several viewpoints they instantiate difference in similarity, and similarity in difference: two highly eligible presidential candidates who were repeatedly being evaluated by the media in terms of campaigning and voting results, as well as discourse and activity performance.

The election campaign interview can be seen to exhibit features of both a political interview and a job interview. The analysis has focused on the answers provided by the two candidates to identical or similar questions posed by the same interviewer. The comparability of questions has contributed to a systematic and consistent examination of the similarities and differences between Clinton and Obama in terms of topic framing, leadership role, personal achievements, future visions.

While at first sight the two candidates appear to display similar and compatible standpoints and attitudes, their language use reveals differences in the focus and strength of their commitments, their political priorities, their relations with the voters, and their rapport with the interviewer. References Beattie, G. Pearson Why is Mrs. Thatcher interrupted so often? Nature Blum-Kulka The dynamics of political interviews.

Text 3 2 : Bull, Peter On identifying questions, replies and nonreplies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology Chilton, Paul Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London and New York: Routledge. Clayman, Steven E. Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In: Drew, P. Heritage eds. Talk at work.

Corbett, Edward P. Connors Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. New York: Oxford University Press. Corner, John The interview as social encounter. In: Scannell P. Broadcast talk. London: Sage. Greatbatch, David Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: The use of agenda shifting procedures by interviewees. Media, Culture and Society 8 4 : A turn-taking system for British news interviews.

Language in Society On the management of disagreement between news interviewees. In: Drew P. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Harris, Sandra Evasive action: How politicians respond to questions in political interviews. In: Scannell, P. London: Sage, Heritage, John Analysing news interviews: Aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: van Dijk, T. Handbook of discourse analysis, 3: Discourse and dialogue.

London: Academic Press, Designing questions and setting agendas in the news interview. In: Glenn, P. Mandelbaum eds. Studies in language and social interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, Roth Grammar and institution: Questions and questioning in the broadcast news interview. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28 1 : Hymes, Dell On communicative competence.

In: Pride J. Holmes eds. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Ilie, Cornelia Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31 8 , Interruption patterns in British parliamentary debates and drama dialogue. In: Betten, A. Dannerer eds. Towards a pragma-rhetorical approach: From rhetoric to pragmatics and beyond.

In: Thorat, A. Strategies of refutation by definition: A pragma-rhetorical approach to refutations in a public speech. Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues. Berlin: Springer. Levinson, Stephen C Activity types and language. Linguistics 17, Silverman, David Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. Swallow, N. Documentary TV journalism. In Rotha, P. Television in the making. London: Focal Press, The purposes of the paper This paper pertains to a research project1 which aims at focusing on the constitution of arguments by taking into account, beside the debate on this theme developed by contemporary argumentation theorists, the important contribution given by the Topical tradition.

My first objective here is to bring to light the role played by semantic analysis of inferential rules in an adequate approach to argument schemes. Here, a deep semantic analysis of the whole-parts relation, which specifies the categories of properties that are transferable or non-transferable from the whole to the parts and vice-versa, allows to define the proper interpretation in which the concerned argument scheme is valid.

A strict connection between the argument schemes and the semantic-ontological level of discourse emerges. Interestingly, the Topics tradition, especially in its Medieval phase, shows to have acquired a clear awareness of this connection. In fact, in the debate about locus, a relevant distinction emerged between locus maxima, then simply named maxima, a notion very close to the current notion of argumentative principle, and locus differentia maximae, later named locus, understood as the semantic-ontological relation habitudo , like causality, alternativity, analogy, implication etc.

It emerges that one locus may produce one or more maxims; in other words, the same ontological relation creates different implications inferential rules. In this paper, I will sketch such an analysis for the locus a causa finali, developing an ontology of action from which various maxims may be derived. The validity of maxims is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the constitution of arguments; the Aristotelian notion of endoxon, which was substantially neglected by the Medieval scholars2, proves to identify an essential component bound to the context and its culture of the constituency of arguments, which conditions their soundness and effectiveness.

The reintegration of this notion in the analysis of arguments is all the more required for the study of how argumentation works in the different contexts of its application Rigotti Their analysis shows that not all properties predicates can be transferred from the parts to the whole and vice-versa.

The transferability of predicates depends on their semantic nature: structure-dependent properties are not transferable and, among the structure-independent properties, only the absolute — non-relative — properties3 can be transferred. As regards the relative structure-independent properties like heavy, light, fat, big, their non-transferability depends on the fact that they involve the whole not focusing on its structure, but implicitly comparing it with other entities considered under the same point of view; thus their scope involves the concerned reality in its wholeness: a big heap of light things say of hay may be intolerably heavy.

I reproduce, in order to sum up the analysis made by van Eemeren and Grootendorst, the scheme they offer in the paper mentioned above. Hamblin introduces an analogous distinction between physical and functional collections. Peter of Spain Summulae Logicales 5. Interesting remarks are put fore by Buridan Summulae de dialectica 6. They show that precise semantic conditions must be met in order to ensure the validity of this argument scheme. In fact, I am convinced that the fallacious or sound use of argument schemes is often not determined by their presumptive or probabilistic nature, but by an uncertain definition of their semantic applicability conditions.

I shall try to show how an adequate representation of the ontology of action that is presupposed by the concerned locus from final cause can explain its fallacious interpretations and establish the limits of its applicability.

The conceptual and theoretical framework of Topics In order to properly lay out the subject we want to face, it is certainly useful, and maybe also necessary, to recall in its essential features the conceptual and theoretical framework on which my discourse will be based. I shall prevailingly refer to the doctrine of topics set out by Aristotle, elaborated by Cicero and systematized by Boethius, Abelard, Peter of Spain, Buridan and others. Topics was thought of by Aristotle as a method for finding out an appropriate argument in relation to any standpoint problema 4.

This method works with rules named topoi translated into Latin with loci. It is well known that there is not a universally accepted interpretation of this Aristotelian notion, for which, by the way, no satisfactory definition is given by Aristotle. Braet offers an important contribution to a convincing interpretation of the Aristotelian perspective.

Starting from the lacunose presentations of loci given by Aristotle in Rhetoric 2. In the following tradition the role of this apparent label — as Braet foreshadows in a note Braet 81 n. This emphasis on locus as the source and basis of an argumentative move is interestingly mirrored by the typical preposition from introducing any class of arguments e.

In the following topical tradition, Boethius, who critically synthesized the two interpretations of Aristotelian topics offered by Cicero and Themistius, designates this component as topica differentia, which is to be understood as the particular ontological domain to which certain inferential principles named maximae propositiones are bound. In other words, loci are differences of maxims because they are implementations in different ontological domains of the same logical connections.

The awareness that maxims are more numerous than loci is anyway implicitly acknowledged by all authors through the list of loci and maxims they offer. Indeed, between the set of maxims and the set of loci, an injective function is established: to each maxim corresponds exactly one locus, while to each locus may correspond one or more maxims. For instance, several maxims are bound to the Locus a causa materiali by the Topical tradition: If the material lacks, the thing is impossible; If the material is there the thing can exist too; If the thing is there the material is there or was there7.

Loci as semantic-ontological relationships The proper nature of loci emerges, gradually, through the Medieval tradition, where, at a certain moment, locus-difference is presented as one extreme of a relation in Latin habitudo , whose other extreme coincides with the standpoint itself. For example, the locus from cause is the extreme of a cause-to-effect relation whose other extreme — the effect — is the standpoint.

Peter of Spain wrote: Locus a causa efficiente est habitudo ipsius ad suum effectum [The locus from efficient cause is the relation of the efficient cause to its effect] In the locus from definition, the relation concerned ties together the definition i.

Locus a definitione est habitudo definitionis ad definitum 5. Let us consider some passages by Abelard and Buridan in which some relevant consequences of the interpretation of locus as extreme s of a habitudo are brought to light. Abelard connects with the habitudo the solidity of inference: Est autem locus differentiae ea res in cuius habitudine ad aliam firmitas consecutionis consistit De dialectica, [locus difference is that thing on whose relation to another thing the solidity of the inference is based].

Starting from this fundamental comment by Buridan, I suggest the following updated interpretation of locus in its connection with maxims: The locus is a specific relation connecting different states of affairs that generates one or more maxims, providing them with semantic transparency notitia and with a specific degree of analytical truth veritas and persuasiveness efficacia.

The interpretation of loci as ontological relations habitudines generating argument schemes entails the task of deriving each argument scheme from the respective topical relation. In the mentioned authors this derivation shows to work as an implication of the ontology of the locus. All argument schemes, or maxims, related to a locus are validly applied only if the conceptual domain actually involved by the argument really exhibits the logical properties of the locus.

Very often, as we saw at the beginning of this paper for the locus from the whole and its parts, a similar linguistic shape hides substantial differences. Indeed French economy is not a species, but a part of European economy, which is in turn a whole to which the structure-dependent property of having strongly reacted Several maxims are generated by this locus.

Indeed, artificial intelligence appears to be at the basis of a renewed interest for practical teleological reasoning in philosophy Walton 3. Walton identifies two basic argument schemes of practical reasoning Walton 48 and : the necessary condition and the sufficient condition schemes. In fact, in this approach, the understanding of action seems to be compromised, and, more relevantly, this approach does not consider that possible properties do inhere to possible things.

First of all, the second extreme of the concerned relation, being referred to by ipsum, is not explicitly identified. It could refer both to the action and to the means Moreover, and more relevantly, the term end and the analogous Latin term finis cover two distinct meanings — outcome and purpose — and, consequently, each of these meanings generates a different interpretation of the maxim. Two apparent maxims, which we might call paramaxims, emerge: 1 if the outcome is good, the action is too 2 if the purpose is good, the action is too Unfortunately, the ambiguity of our traditional principle is far from being exhausted as it touches also the third remaining term our maxim consists of: the protheical notion of good.

Indeed, the goodness of a chicken does not coincide with the goodness of a cook nor with the goodness of a gourmet nor… However, even though these meanings are different, their difference is not irreducible, since goodness is, in general, attributed to some entity or state of affairs insofar as it discharges a certain function in the due way see Vendler Consequently, we could think the polisemy of good is solved once we have identified the functions expected from the concerned entities or states of affairs.

In paramaxim 1 , the goodness of an outcome might be defined as the positive nature or the responding to due expectations of the state of affairs resulting from an action. The perspective in turn may be more or less wide and refer to a subject both individual and social or to a purpose: For me or for Europe , it is now a good thing to devaluate the Euro For the recover of the European economy, it is now a good thing to devaluate the Euro The constituents introduced by for, which define the perspectives, should be referred to as beneficiaries.

The absence of any beneficiary corresponds to the above mentioned notion of absolute expectation where each entity is per se conceived of as destined created in order to realize a peculiar perfection. In the Western Medieval tradition this type of expectation was identified in relation to a totality-governing order, created by God, possibly mediated by nature.

All in all, it is not evident that paramaxim 1 does represent a proper maxim, as even bad actions may cause good outcomes. Let us consider the following, perhaps extravagant, example: Action: X tries to kill Y by shooting her. Outcome: X misses Y and hits a tire of her car, thus preventing her from reaching the airport and from leaving with a plane which then crashed.

Indeed, this paramaxim is, in general, an evident non-sequitur as it claims that, if two constituents of an event have opposite properties, the one does have the property of the other. Now, like paramaxim 1 , also paramaxim 2 is, in general, a non-sequitur as it claims that, if two constituents of an event have opposite properties, one has the property of the other.

However, if considered in detail, this latter paramaxim might also have reasonable readings when the conditions of three particular scenarios are met: i. The quality of the possible side effects is considered: following this paramaxim, if an action is aimed at a good effect, it is said to be good even if some non-intended side effects of the causal chain are bad.

In this very frequent situation the action may be taken for good in its wholeness if the negative side effects it brings about are, in themselves or compared with the good effects, tolerable or irrelevant. Of course, in this case, the goodness of the whole action is intended and not the goodness of the side effects, which nevertheless retain their negativity. The fulfillment of the action requires within its causal chain an instrumental action, i.

The causal chain entails the adoption of instruments, resources or procedures that are in themselves morally indifferent or exempt from moral evaluation. This is the only version of our principle paramaxim for which it represents a proper maxim. This maxim presupposes the existence of a class of morally neutral resources tools, activities, procedures, abilities having a mere instrumental nature, which are good or bad depending on the goodness or badness of their uses.

Let us consider the two following examples: X saves her friend Y from failure with her money, where money plays a clearly positive role; X corrupts the judge with his money, where the role of money is clearly negative. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle b introduces the notion of instrumental goods including all goods, but virtue that are per se neutral and may be considered as goods insofar they represent resources necessary to realize truly good ends.

Rhetoric is included in this class integrating a small collection of other examples: strength, health, wealth and strategy. Interestingly Aristotle includes rhetoric, which largely coincides for him and the other ancient scholars with the argumentative discourse. In fact, the ancient theoreticians frequently focus on the ambivalence of rhetorical ability, noticing however that, though often being exploited to ignite conflicts and seditions and to perpetrate frauds, it is nevertheless necessary to create the healthy consent generating and preserving all human cultures and institutions this remark is present in Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian.

Especially Cicero engages in bringing to light an evidently positive balance between good and bad uses of communication and argumentation see his introduction to the first book of De inventione Endoxa as complementary soundness conditions of arguments and as clues of cultural belonging Considering both the locus from totality to which the whole-parts argument scheme refers and the locus from the final cause, two significant considerations emerge: 1.

In general it does not receive the argumentatively correct interpretation we have just brought to light, but an ironic, malicious, reading that recalls the paramaxim 2. Invalid principles sometimes seem to recover their validity, as different, valid, maxims are actually invoked. In a particular interpretation of our proverb, an action aiming at a good effect may be considered in its wholeness as good even if some side effects non-intended effects are bad, if these side effects are tolerable or irrelevant.

Indeed the maxim from the lesser evil, generated by the locus from alternatives, is here properly invoked In general, it should be emphasized that valid maxims argument schemes do not acquire or lose their validity intermittently, depending on their different applications: indeed their argumentative effectiveness, their applicability, is restricted to the scenarios that meet the semantic-ontological conditions required by their right interpretation.

The maxim from totality should not be invoked if the properties concerned are structure-dependent; analogously, the maxim of the locus from final cause we considered cannot be applied if the means concerned are not properly neutral However, in such cases we are not legitimated to state that the considered maxim becomes invalid, but we have to take cognizance that, in the actual context, our valid maxim does not meet the required conditions, i.

At this point, the question about what other conditions, beyond the validity of the maxim, must be satisfied in order to have a sound argument might be translated as how material starting point should be defined and analysed or what components of an argumentative move are to be identified with the material starting point.

In this connection I propose to reconsider the Aristotelian notion of endoxon as it is defined in the first Book of Topics b. An endoxon is thus an opinion that is accepted by the relevant audience or by the opinion leaders of the relevant audience. It seems that the tradition of topics indeed neglected this notion, merging it with the notion of maxim originally, in Boethius, propositio maxima often referred to by Aristotle with topos But it is hard to imagine that Aristotle attributed to all people or to the majority of them or to the wisest ones etc.

The cognitive status of the abstract, general inference rules discovered by argumentation theorists cannot be interpreted in terms of the prevailingly shared opinion. The ignorance of this fundamental component of Aristotelian topics is probably due to the fact that Aristotle did not explicitly give any example of what he understood by endoxon. Numerous endoxa can, however, be reconstructed if we consider the examples often given by the author when listing his topoi.

Not coincidentally, in my opinion, Braet see above , aiming to reconstruct an ideal model of an Aristotelian locus, lists as fourth component, beyond the name, the suggestion of a fair procedure for establishing the concerned type of argument and the topical principle involved, an actual example to which Aristotle often applies this principle Braet In both examples the same maxim is at work, but it gets hold of a different endoxon of a different shared opinion ; this opinion can be brought to light by singling out the presuppositions — the premises — enabling us to activate the maxim.

In 1 the gods are presupposed to know more than humans; in 2 it is presupposed that people are less likely to beat their father than their neighbors Indeed, both examples provide this further premise, which coincides in 1 with the fact that not even the gods know everything and in 2 with the fact that someone has been beating his father In the first argument, a syllogistic procedure based on the conjunction of the endoxon and this second premise see Rigotti , — the gods know more than humans — the gods do not know everything generates, through the third figure of syllogism more specifically, the mode Darapti21 , a provisional conclusion: — some entities knowing more than humans do not know everything, through which, satisfying the if-part of the maxim, we activate a modus ponens and derive the definitive conclusion: — humans do not know everything.

The two endoxa invoked by Aristotle to support so many arguments show different degrees of culture-dependence, which are worth to be focused on. The present day reader perceives in this endoxon a certain cultural distance that can however be filled. On the other hand, the cultural distance of the endoxon presupposed by the first argument could neither be easily recovered by an audience of monotheistic believers because of the polytheism it presupposes and because of the denial of divine omniscience it asserts , nor by an audience of non-believers as it presupposes the existence of the gods.

Rocci The cases in which cultural presuppositions are discussed within the same culture are particularly interesting as they show the capacity of this culture of evolving by means of argumentation. Both statements, he comments, indeed entail that there is a time in which the gods do not exist.

In this argumentation, a vision, that in another argumentation was presupposed as an endoxon the Greek Olympus theogony , becomes a standpoint, that is not only questioned, but also refuted, thus showing a phase of evolution of the Greek culture of the time. References Alighieri, Dante. Petrocchi, G. Bochenski, Joseph M. Petri Hispani Summulae Logicales. Torino: Marietti. Braet, Antoine C. Argumentation Buridan, John Summulae de Dialectica.

An annotated translation with a philosophical introduction by G. New Haven: Yale University Press. De Rijk, Lambertus M. Eemeren, Frans H. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. The fallacies of composition and division.

In: J. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday. Jelle Gerbrandy et al. Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. Houtlosser eds. Dialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publisher, In: Hitchcock, D. Farr eds. The Uses of Argument. Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University. Ontario: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Argumentative indicators in discourse.

New York: Springer. Garssen, Bart Argument schemes. Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Sic Sat, Hamblin, Charles L. London: Methuen. Hubbel, Harry M. Reinhardt, Tobias ed. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rigotti, Eddo Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage.

Pondering on problems of Argumentation. New York: Springer, Topics: the Argument Generator. In: Rigotti, E. Argumentation for Financial Communication. Argumentum eLearning Module. Comparing the Argumentum-Model of Topics with other contemporary approaches to argument schemes; the procedural and the material components.

The fear, both of the authorities and of the people, which reigned in the city was vividly felt everywhere.

Place your bets bandana	468
Westpac online investing username generator	Medieval philosophers had already observed that modal words like necessarily are often used not in an absolute but in a relative way, to convey the necessity of an entailment necessitas consequentiae and they guarded against confusing it with necessitas consequentis, that is with the absolute necessity of the consequent. A debate, a polemical exchange, a violent conflict are agonistic confrontations that necessarily involve, as a whole, some sort of opposition between the contenders. In this paper, I will sketch such an analysis for the locus a causa finali, developing an ontology of action from which various maxims may be derived. Each metaphor distinguishes nature from its falsification on the basis of work. One of the guiding hypotheses of the present work, which is shared by Freeman is that modals behave similarly to connectives and impose constraints on the interpretation of argumentative pragmatic predicates at different levels. But lately, in particular, we are looking a lot at rituals and butcheries.
Outright betting euro 2022 logo	But if I thus give to affioramenti naturali di petrolio investing other who confronts here his legitimate standing as a man with whom I am ready to enter into dialogue, then I may trust him and suppose him to be also ready to deal with me as his partner Buber Leon S. This ancient and ever growing treasury contains much material relevant for the theme of this paper in general, and particularly for the development of a dialectic of tolerance. To what extent have the institutionalised conventions being kept in place and to what extent have they changed? All argument schemes, or maxims, related to a locus are validly applied only if the conceptual domain actually involved by the argument really exhibits the logical properties of the locus.
Reds game may 23	179
Affioramenti naturali di petrolio investing	Aiding and abetting criminal damage

MARKTZEITEN FOREX CHARTS

Infrastrutture e riparazioni globali : i paesi in via di sviluppo hanno un grande appetito per ghiaia, legname, acciaio e altri materiali necessari per costruire strade e altre opere pubbliche. VEDI: Costruisci il tuo portafoglio con investimenti in infrastrutture Acquisto politico : un certo numero di nazioni hanno cominciato ad acquistare risorse naturali per garantire una fornitura costante di importanti materie prime.

Questi acquisti assumono talvolta la forma di accordi politici e, talvolta, ordini aperti a mercati aperti o acquisizioni straniere, rendendo i governi un altro fattore di domanda. Memorizzazione di valore : molte risorse naturali agiscono come un magazzino di valore, in particolare i metalli.

Opzioni di investimento per gli investitori di risorse naturali Quindi hai sentito le ragioni e stai chiedendo dove cominciare. Investimento diretto : gli investitori possono sempre acquistare direttamente una risorsa. Questo approccio funziona bene per piccoli investimenti in metalli preziosi, ma diventa rapidamente impraticabile quando si parla di legname, gas naturale e altre risorse che richiedono grandi impianti di stoccaggio con costi associati.

Questi sono grandi investimenti per i commercianti esperti, ma i futures e le opzioni possono essere sconcertanti per tutti, ma questi specialisti. Exchange-Traded Funds : ETF di risorse naturali sono solo un altro esempio di come gli ETF possano aiutare un investitore a guadagnare un'ampia esposizione sul mercato con pochi investimenti.

Azioni : ETFs sono naturalmente costituiti da scorte. Per quanto riguarda i primi, al numero potrebbero presto aggiungersi i giacimenti ormai in via di esaurimento. A renderne impossibile lo sfruttamento le opposizioni degli ambientalisti.

A volte del resto motivata, come nel caso relativo allo sfruttamento di 8 nuovi pozzi di petrolio e fino ad un massimo di 12 di fronte alla costa tra Ragusa e Scicli. Resa impossibile, in particolare, dal rischio sismico della faglia di Scicli e dai possibili danni alla componente faunistica marina. Secondo Michele Marsiglia, presidente di Federpetroli Italia, il petrolio in Italia potrebbe fare del nostro Paese una potenza energetica.

I primi sono in grado di dare tra i 50 e i 70mila barili al giorno, i secondi tra i 30 e i 50mila. Un contributo di grande rilievo al paniere energetico nazionale. ENI e Shell, infatti verseranno 2 miliardi di euro in dieci anni. A formare il dato sono mila tonnellate sulla terra ferma e mila in mare. Con un occhio di riguardo proprio alla Sicilia. Imitata presto da altre compagnie straniere, che sino al si dedicarono alla piana di Catania, al ragusano e al bacino sedimentario della Sicilia centrale e occidentale.

How useful was this post? Click on a star to rate it!

Affioramenti naturali di petrolio investing forex steam free download with crack

Oil and Natural Gas: Technical Analysis: Holding

Other materials on the topic

Each way bet grand national 5th place

Glycol ethers environmental effects

Pengenalan forex pdf download

De facto merger investopedia forex

Pacho star sports betting

Btc tesla coil