Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constructing One’s Arguments Based on Refutations of the Other’s Discourse. A Study of the Traditional Presidential Debate: Chirac/Jospin (1995) Versus Sarkozy/Royal (2007)

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study focuses on the use and function of refutation in two televised debates during which candidates who have reached the second round of the French presidential elections come face to face. The aim of this study is to examine the forms and functions of refutation within the theoretical framework of dialogism. The rhetorical-argumentative functions of refutation and the challenges of this discursive practice in the genre “televised political debate” will also be put forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We have mainly dealt with questions of ethos in the last debate (2012) and not so much with refutation (See Roitman, 2014).

  2.  See also Fløttum (2005). For other studies on presidential debates in France, see for instance Constantin de Chanay and Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2010); Doury and Kerbrat-Orecchioni (2011); Roitman and Sullet-Nylander (2010).

  3. French discourse analysis (Benveniste 1966, 1974; Ducrot et al. 1980; Ducrot 1984; Culioli 1990, 1999) utilizes the notions of énonciation and énoncé, which are here translated as “enunciation” and “utterance”. Enunciation (énonciation) is, in this framework, not only referred to as the physical act of speaking but denotes the coming into being of one unique utterance (énoncé). The act of enunciation is seen as a historical moment where existence is given to something—an utterance—that didn’t exist before this moment nor will appear after. Utterance (énoncé) is thus the instant and concrete result of a unique enunciation. This methodology proposes to study the “traces” of enunciation in utterances—i.e. the speaker’s marks of modality, axiology and affectivity in discourse (Ducrot et al. 1980, p. 50–56). See Marnette (2005) for a thorough global review in English of La linguistique de l’énonciation and Johansson and Suomela-Salmi (2011) and Amossy (2009) for more explanations on the origins and the use of the notion énonciation in the French discourse analysis. See also Ducrot (2012) for an explanation in English of Anscombre and Ducrot’s “La théorie de l’argumentation dans la langue”.

  4. The concept of discursive entity was introduced by Ducrot (1984) and subsequently revised by Nølke et al. (2004).

  5. Please note that in this study, povs are always placed within English quotation marks.

  6. All these terms come from Nølke et al. (2004). The notion of enunciative links corresponds to liens énonciatifs, discursive entities corresponds to êtres discursifs and interlocutor corresponds to allocutaire.

  7. Charaudeau and Maingueneau speak about refutation in terms of propositional refutation or counter argumentation.

  8. See also Apothéloz and Brandt (1992; Apothéloz et al. 1993); Roitman (2006).

  9. The term “staging” corresponds to Ducrot’s notion “la mise en scène” (1984).

  10.  Sentential negation, however, does not automatically provoke refutation in the sense that we have described it. Although stratified in two opposing discursive layers, the negated utterance can equally serve to describe a state of affairs. Sentential negation is therefore named “descriptive negation” (Moeschler 1982; Larrivée and Perrin 2010).

  11. This is a kind of fallacy when an argument is voluntarily misinterpreted and changed so that it may be turned against the person who said it first. See Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) for the notion “straw man”.

  12. At this time (1995), Chirac was strongly criticized in the press for the launching of the nuclear tests at the Mururoa Islands in New Caledonia.

  13. Jus sanguinis (right of blood) is the right to nationality or citizenship of anyone having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. Children can become citizens if their parents have state citizenship. This principle contrasts with jus soli (right of the soil), which is the right to nationality or citizenship of anyone born in the territory of a state.

  14. Until now, we have not made any exhaustive analysis of this kind on the 2012 debate.

  15. The French expression is “langue de bois”and means language that uses vague, abstract, ambiguous or pompous words; saying without stating or confirming anything on salient issues.

References

  • Anscombre, J.-C., and O. Ducrot. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amossy, R. 2009. Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal Logic 19: 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apothéloz, D., and P.-Y. Brandt. 1992. Champs et effet de la négation argumentative: Contre-argumentation et mise en cause. Argumentation 6: 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apothéloz, D., P.-Y. Brandt, and G. Quiroz. 1993. The function of negation in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtine, M. 1970. La Poétique de Dostoïevski. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, E. 1966. Problèmes de la linguistique générale I. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benveniste, E. 1974. Problèmes de la linguistique générale II. Paris: Gallimard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bres, J. 2005. Savoir de quoi on parle: dialogue, dialogal, dialogique, dialogisme, polyphonie… In Dialogisme, polyphonie: approches linguistiques, ed. J. Bres, P.P. Haillet, S. Mellet, H. Nølke and L. Rosier, 47–61. Brussels: Duculot.

  • Bres, J. and Nowakowska, A. 2006. Dialogisme: du principe à la matérialité discursive. In Le sens et ses voix. Dialogisme et polyphonie en langue et en discours, ed. Perrin, L, 21–48. Metz: Recherches linguistiques 28.

  • Charaudeau, P., and D. Maingueneau. 2002. Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constantin de Chanay, H. and Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2010. Les interruptions dans les débats médiatiques: une stratégie interactionnelle. Pratiques 147/148: 83–104.

  • Culioli, Antoine. 1990. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: opérations et représentations I. Paris: Ophrys.

    Google Scholar 

  • Culioli, Antoine. 1999. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: formalisation et opérations de repérage II. Paris: Ophrys.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot II, O., et al. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doury, M. and Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2011. La place de l’accord dans l’argumentation polémique: le cas du débat Sarkozy/Royal (2007). A Contrario. http://www.cairn.info/revue-a-contrario-2011-2.htm.

  • Ducrot, O. 1984. Le dire et le dit. Paris: Minuit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ducrot, O. 2012. Slovenian lectures: Introduction into argumentative semantics. ed. I. Z. Zagar. Ljubliana: Pedagoski Institut (Translated lectures from 1991).

  • Fløttum, K, 2005. MOI et AUTRUI dans le discours scientifique: l’exemple de la négation ne… pas. In Dialogisme, polyphonie: approches linguistiques. ed. J. Bres, P.P. Haillet, S. Mellet, H. Nølke and L. Rosier, 325–337. Brussels: Duculot.

  • Johansson, M, and Suomela Salmi, E. 2011. Enonciation: French pragmatic approach(es). In Discursive Pragmatics, ed. J.O. Östman, 71–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2005. Le discours en interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrivée, P. and Perrin, L. 2010. Voix et point de vue de la négation. In La question polyphonique ou dialogique en sciences du langage Recherches linguistiques 31, ed. M. Colas-Blaise, M. Kara, L. Perrin et and A. Petitjean, 175–200. Metz: CELTED Université Paul Verlaine.

  • Legavre, J.-B. 1990. Le débat télévisé Mitterrand/Chirac de 1988 raconté par plusieurs de ses acteurs. Politix 3(9): 86–93. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/polix_0295-2319_1990_num_3_9_2163.

  • Marnette, Sophie. 2005. Speech and thought presentation in French: Concepts and strategies. Philadelphia, PA, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Moeschler, J. 1982. Dire et contredire: Pragmatique de la négation et acte de réfutation dans la conversation. Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moirand, S. 2007. Les discours de la presse quotidienne: Observer, analyser, comprendre. Paris: PUF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nølke, H., K. Fløttum, and C. Norén. 2004. ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roitman, M. 2006. Polyphonie argumentative: étude de la négation dans des éditoriaux du Figaro, de Libération et du Monde. Doctoral thesis, Stockholm: Institutionen för franska, italienska och klassiska språk. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:su:diva-1053.

  • Roitman, M. and Sullet-Nylander, F. 2010. Voix de campagne présidentielle: quelques observations sur la question et la réfutation dans le débat télévisé Royal–Sarkozy 2 mai 2007. In Les voix des français: à travers l’histoire, l’école et la presse, ed. Abecassis, M. & Ledegen, G. Oxford: Peter Lang.

  • Roitman, M. 2014. “Presidential candiddates’ ethos of credibilty in the 2012 Hollande–Sarkozy debate”. In Discourse and society, ed. Teun A. van Dijk. An International Journal for the Study of Discourse and Communication in their Social Political and Cultural Contexts. Sage.

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and Houtlosser, P. 2002. Strategic maneuvring with the burden of proof. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. Eemeren, F.H. van, 13–28. Amsterdam: Vale Press.

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Windisch, U. 1987. Le K.O. verbal, la communication conflictuelle. Lausanne: l’Âge d’Homme.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Björnstigen 127, 170 72, Solna, Sweden

    Malin Roitman

Authors
  1. Malin Roitman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Malin Roitman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Roitman, M. Constructing One’s Arguments Based on Refutations of the Other’s Discourse. A Study of the Traditional Presidential Debate: Chirac/Jospin (1995) Versus Sarkozy/Royal (2007). Argumentation 29, 19–32 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9332-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9332-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation