2004
Volume 42, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores the ways in which the Dutch populist politician Geert Wilders formulates populist arguments, i.e. the argument by which it is claimed that if many people hold a certain standpoint, this standpoint should be accepted. A corpus study of 27 texts taken from the website of Wilders’ political party (www.pvv.nl) reveals four characteristics of this presentation, which show a significant deviation of the way this type of argument is described in the handbooks: 1) absence of indicators, 2) implicit standpoint, 3) a wide range of verbs to indicate what ‘the people’ think or belief, 4) use of a construction in which the speaker functions as a mouthpiece (‘in the name of the people I say’). We claim that these characteristics makes a populist argument hard to identify and hypothesize that they may function as a disguised way for presenting a fallacious populist argument.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.007.JANS
2020-07-01
2021-10-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/42/2/07_TVT2020.2_JANS.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.007.JANS&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andone, C.(2015). Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 15, 13 pp. Te downloaden via: https://aad.revues.org/2021#tocto1n3
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Andone, C.(2016). Argumentative patterns in the political domain: The case of European parliamentary committees of inquiry. Argumentation, 30, 45-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Blassnig, S., Büchel, F., Ernst, N., & Engesser, S.(2018). Populism and informal fallacies: An analysis of right-wing populist rhetoric in election campaigns. Argumentation, 33(1), 107-136.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Boogaart, R., Jansen, H., & Van Leeuwen, M. (te verschijnen). The language of argumentation. Cham: Springer.
  5. Eemeren, F.H. van(2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.
  6. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2009). Conceptions of reasonableness. Dordrecht: Springer.
  7. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2015). The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with threats. In B.Garssen, D.Godden, G.Mitchell & F.Snoeck Henkemans (red.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1396-1407). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B.(2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic manoeuvring with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344-364.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eemeren, F.H. van, & Garssen, B.(2019). En dan zit je met de gebakken peren! Strategisch manoeuvreren met het argumentum ad consequentiam. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41(1), 47-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R.(2015). Making the best of argumentative discourse. In F. H.van Eemeren (red.), Reasonableness an effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 543-554). Cham: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, F.H. van, & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.(2016). Argumentatie. Inleiding in het analyseren en beoordelen van betogen (5e herz. dr.)Groningen: Noordhoff.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Freeman, J.B.(1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In H.V.Hansen and R.C.Pinto (red.), Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Godden, D.(2008). On common knowledge and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(2),101-129.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Haaften, T. van, & Leeuwen, M. van (te verschijnen). Suggesting outsider status by behaving improperly: The linguistic realisation of a populist rhetorical strategy in Dutch Parliament. In I.van der Geest, H.Jansen & B.van Klink (red.), Vox populi: Populism as a rhetorical and democratic challenge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Jansen, H.(2018). Ad populum arguments in a political context. In S.Oswald & D.Maillat (red.), Argumentation and Inference. Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017, Volume II (pp. 423-436). London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Jansen, H.(2019). De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 41, 143-157.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Jansen, H., & Leeuwen, M. van(2018). Presentational choice in ad populum argumentation. In B.Garssenet al. (red.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 573-582). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jansen, H. & Leeuwen, M. van (ingediend). Populist argumentative style: Geert Wilders’s use of the populist argument. Journal of Argumentation in Context.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Jansen, H. & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.(2020). Argumentative use and strategic function of the expression ‘not for nothing’. Argumentation, 34(2), 143-162.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Jansen, H. (te verschijnen).“The people want it, we’ll do it.” Analysis and evaluation of the populist argument in the context of deliberation. Journal Argumentation in Context.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, R.H., & Blair, J.A.(2006). Logical Self-Defense. New York etc.: Idea Press.
  22. Kienpointner
    Kienpointner(2003). Populistische Topik. Zu einigen rhetorischen Strategien Jörg Haiders. Rhetorik, 21(1), 119-140.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Leeuwen, M. van(2014). Systematic stylistic analysis. The use of a checklist. In B.Kaal, I.Maks & A.van Elfrinkhof (red.), From Text to Political Positions. Text analysis across disciplines (pp. 225-244). Amsterdam [etc.]: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Leeuwen, M. van(2015). Stijl en politiek. Een taalkundig-stilistische benadering van Nederlandse parlementaire toespraken. Utrecht: LOT.
  25. Leeuwen, M. van(2016). ‘Man van het volk’. Stijl en imago van Geert Wilders. Tekstblad22(2), 6-11.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Leeuwen, M. van, & Vliet, F. van(2019). De ‘stem van het volk’. Populisme en perspectief. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing41(1), 173-187.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Minot, W.S.(1981). A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11, 222-235.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Mudde, C., & Kaltwasser, C.R.(2017). Populisme (Elementaire deeltjes 51). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Müller, J.-W.(2017). Wat is populisme?Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Nieuw Amsterdam.
  30. Nolt, J.E.(1984). Informal logic. Possible worlds and imagination. New York, etc.: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
  31. Pauwels, T.(2014). Populism in Western Europe: Comparing Belgium, Germany and The Netherlands. London: Routledge.
  32. Reisigl, M.(2006). The dynamics of right-wing populist argumentation in Austria. In: F.H.van Eemeren, J.A.Blair, C.A.Willard & B.Garssen (red.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). Amsterdam: Rozenberg.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Vossen, K.(2016). The Power of Populism. Geert Wilders and the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. London: Routledge.
  34. Walton, D.N.(1992). The place of emotion in argument. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  35. Walton, D.N.(1999). Appeal to popular opinion. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
  36. Walton, D.N.(2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Walton, D.N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F.(2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.007.JANS
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2020.2.007.JANS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error