The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes, but… constructions. Based on (N=22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding arguments speakers re-present others' discourse, what types of criticism they exercise through particular sequential patterns, and which argumentative techniques they saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism (sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also to the argumentative relations that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.

No abstract

Doubt is a double-edge sword. On the one hand, uncertainty is essential for epistemic progress, and yet, doubt can also make us vulnerable to deception, confused to the point of no longer knowing what is true. What distinguishes a doubt that is epistemologically beneficial from one which is deceptive, or even manufactured in the context of a conspiracy theory? In this chapter, we explore doubt, its role, and the way it is being handled in the context of the public controversy about the COVID-19 vaccine. We approach conspiracy theories as argumentative discourses and reconstruct the generic structure of a conspiracy theory macro argument. Through the structure, we look into the discourse of the twelve prominent anti-vaxxers known as the “Disinformation Dozen”, focusing on the argumentative potential that doubt can have in the public controversy about the COVID-19 vaccine. We suggest to distinguish ambivalence from scepticism and denialism as three argumentative potentials that a motivated doubt can have. We argue that ambivalent doubt ought to be acknowledged, addressed and incorporated into the public health narrative, in order to avoid that an unnecessarily broad interpretation of conspiracy theory dominates the public debate and leaves an uncertain public a prey to it.

No abstract

Argumentation theory investigates the practices and standards of using arguments. Argumentation is understood as a communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in the context of doubt or disagreement. It thus constitutes or contributes to a wide range of fundamental social processes, from political debates to legal disputes, scientific inquiry, and interpersonal conflicts. In contrast to much research within communication, argumentation theory combines descriptive study of how we argue with normative inquiry into the standards of good argumentation. In this sense, it has a long interdisciplinary tradition that starts with ancient rhetoric, dialectic, and logic and continues today to include recent research in areas such as online communication and artificial intelligence.