Abstract
Typically, election night specials focus on announcing the results and commenting them. These comments reveal two argumentative stages: the first consists of assessing the scores (“it’s a good/poor result”); the second is explanatory (“this poor score reflects the voters’ disappointment with the outgoing president”/“this high score shows the voters’ longing for change”). The present paper will focus on the assessment process. The observation of election night specials during the last decades in France suggests that an electoral result is not good or bad in itself, but is discursively constructed as such. For instance, the discursive evaluation of a result is often integrated within argumentative sequences that aim at justifying it. We will examine the function of comparison in such argumentative sequences. Based on the transcript of two TV specials after the first round of French presidential elections (April, 22nd, 2012) from two TV channels (TF1 and France 2), we will show how the assessment of the scores relies on various comparisons: between the results obtained by the different candidates within the same election; between the results obtained by one political party in successive presidential elections; between the results obtained by the leaders of different countries confronted with similar economic crisis; between the results predicted by polling organizations and the actual results. We aim at exploring the argumentative use of comparison as well as the associated conditions of acceptability in context.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a systematic inventory of the parameters used to establish subtypes within comparative arguments, see Doury (2009).
- 2.
This paper is part of a research, initiated in collaboration with Assimakis Tseronis, which deals with various argumentative devices aiming at making figures talk (and more specifically, at making electoral scores talk) during election night specials on TV (Doury and Tseronis 2014).
- 3.
Superscript FH, NS, MLP or JLM indicates that the politician whose name has just been mentioned supports François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, Marine Le Pen or Jean-Luc Mélenchon respectively.
- 4.
Later on during the election night special, Gilbert Collard, an extreme-right politician, calls her disdainfully “Mrs Two-per-cent”.
References
Brown, W. R. 1989. Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic XI:161–172.
Brown, W. R. 1995. The domain constraint on analogy and analogical argument. Informal Logic 17 (1): 89–100.
Doury, M. 2009. Argument schemes typologies in practice: The case of comparative arguments. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, eds. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 141–155. Dordrecht: Springer.
Doury, M., and A. Tseronis. (2014). Les faits et les arguments: La mise en discours des scores électoraux. In Actes du colloque “Le langage manipulateur: Pourquoi et comment argumenter?”, Arras, 13–15 septembre 2012, eds. J. Goes, J.-M. Mangiante, F. Olmo, and C. Pineira. Arras: Artois Presse Université (APU).
Ducrot, O. 1973. La preuve et le dire. Paris: Mame.
van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., R. Grootendorst, and F. Snoeck-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., and P. Houtlosser. 2006. Strategic maneuvering: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20:381–392.
Govier, T. 1989. Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic 11 (3): 141–152.
Govier, T. 2001. A practical study of argument . 5th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1988. Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles. First published 1958 by Presses Universitaires de France.
Plantin, C. 2011. Analogie et métaphore argumentatives. A Contrario 16:110–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doury, M. (2014). How to Make Figures Talk: Comparative Argument in TV Election Night Specials. In: Ribeiro, H. (eds) Systematic Approaches to Argument by Analogy. Argumentation Library, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06334-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-06333-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-06334-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)