Search

The paper presents an analysis of the cultural embeddedness of arguments, raised as a part of the Bulgarian debate about the ratification of the Istanbul convention. The method I employed was the localization procedure of Generalized Argumentation theory. Through a qualitative analysis of empirical argumentation data, I identified arguments in favour of or against the ratification of the Istanbul convention. Information about the cultural background against which these arguments were raised, i.e. about Bulgarian culture, was gathered from the part of the ninth wave of the European Social Survey that used the Portrait Value Questionnaire—an instrument for measuring human values, based on Schwartz's theory of human values. By establishing a certain relationship between the arguments and the cultural background information, I came to the conclusion that the debate between the proponents and the opponents of the ratification represented a conflict between the basic values of universalism and tradition, and more particularly, between the lower-order values of equality and respect for tradition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces the Generalized Argumentation Theory which takes argumentation as a locally rational socio-cultural interaction governed by social norms and carried out through discourse between the members of a socio-cultural community in order to reason things out. Then we bring in the basic structure of generalized argumentation and the localized procedure of Generalized Argumentation Theory for studying the argumentative rules (social norms). On the basis of above introduction, we use the localized procedure to analyze a case of political argumentation by reciting poems in ancient China. By doing so, it's indicated that political argumentation by reciting poems, in essence, takes cultural principle of Li of the Spring and Autumn Period as argumentative rules and uses poems to express ideas, in virtue of which arguments are accepted as locally rational by the politicians at that time. At last, the Little Red Book quotation fight, a similar political activity, is discussed briefly to show the significance that ancient Chinese political argumentation has on contemporary argumentation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By using the Generalized Argumentation Theory, this paper tries to reveal the rules and structures of the argumentation about the imperial title issue in the Great Ritual Controversy. Our analysis shows that both the protagonist and the antagonist follow ancient Chinese political system and cultural traditions, and appeal to ancient classics and historical events in order to defend their claims. With these rules, the argumentation about the issue is demonstrated. Finally, this paper shows that: 1) Generalized Argumentation Theory and its methods are tolerant of cultural pluralism (including mainstream culture); 2) it is feasible to describe and evaluate arguments through socio-cultural interpretation.