TWEETING THE ARAB SPRING Argumentative polylogues in digital media

Full text

44
TWEETING
THE
ARAB
SPRING
Argumentative polylogues in digital media
Marcin Lewinski
UN
IV
ERS
I
DADE
NOVA
DE
LI
SBOA,
PO RT
UG
AL
Dima
Mohammed
UN
I
VERS
I
DADE
NOVA
DE
LISBOA,
PO
R
TUG
AL
The
po
int
of
depa
rtu
re
fo
r o ur analysis
is
th
e
un
de
rsta
ndin
g
of
arg
um
e
nt
atio n
as
re
ason
i
ng
-
in
-
in
teract
i
on
. This
un
de
rsta
ndin
g h
as
been
ex
tensively and convincingly
th
eo
ri
zed at least s
in
ce
Aristotle's
Top
i
cs
and
Sop
hi
st
i
ca
l R
ef
u
ta
ti
ons
(e.g., Spranzi, 2011). Tod
ay,
it is a building block
of ma ny approaches to a rgu
me
nt
at
ion : fr
om
"normat
ive pragmatists" Qackson & Jacob
s,
19
80), pragm
a-
dialecticians
(va
n
Ee
meren &
Groo
tendorst, 2
004),
fo
rm
al di alecticians
(
Ha
mblin
, 1970),
con
1muni
ca
tio n
sc
holars
(Hamp
le, Jon
es
, & Averbeck,
2009),
in
fo
rm
al
logicians Qo
hn
son &
Bl
a
ir
, 1977), to for mal l
og
ician
s,
such
as
va
n
Be
nth
em (2009), who
claim that l
og
ic o riginated
as
a s
tud
y of "
int
elligent interactio ns" (
p.
vii).
Alth
oug h
th
e
bulk
of
work
in arg
um
e
nt
atio n theory h
as
foc used on the task
of
defi
nin
g w hat
it
means
fo
r
int
er-
ac
tio ns
to
be "
int
elli
gen
t" (o r rati onal, reasonable, reasoned,
va
lid, criti
ca
l), rela
ti
vely little
atte
nt
ion
h
as
been paid to h
ow
to
un
de
rstand interactions.
Whil
e for
ma
ny r
ea
s
on
i
ng
-
in-
i
nteract
i
on
is
basically r
eason
in
g aga
in
st co nve r
sa
tional bac k
gro
und ,
we
wo
rk from a perspecti
ve
where
int
er
ac
tio n is in
th
e foregro
und
, and reaso
nin
g is o ne o f
th
e
thin
gs
that ha
pp
ens
th
ere
(and a c rucia l
thin
g if argu
me
nt
ation is to be analyzed).
We
a
dmit
,
th
oug h, that the
notion
of
int
eraction h
as
been ce
ntr
al to at least one of the
chi
ef
t
op
i
cs
in the di
sc
ip
li
ne : the l
og
i
c-d
ialectic- rhetoric
di
vide (Wenzel, 1990) w here l
og
ic
is the s
tu
dy
of
"
th
e nor ms
of
good
reaso
nin
g"
and,
as
such, appli
es
to all
in
stances
of
argu-
me
nt
ation (
Bl
a
ir
,
20
12, p. 161);
"dia
lectic is
th
e
pr
ac
tice and
th
eory of conver
sa
tio n
s;
[an
d]
rheto ric
th
at
of
speech
es
" (
Krabbe,
2000,
p. 205) . A close exa n1inati on
of
th
ese dis
tin
ctio ns
reveals som e probl
emati
c ele
ments
.
Di
alec ti
ca
l arg
um
e
nt
s are ad
va
nced
in
int
eractive
exchanges be
tw
een a few (
that
basically m
ea
ns
"two"
-see L
ew
iriski , 2013a) acti ve pa
rti
ci-
pan
ts w ho co
nfr
ont
"
on
e o r a small set
of
relati vely consiste
nt
a
ttitud
es"
of
their
int
er
l
oc
utors
(Blair,
20
12, p. 159) . Dialectic so conceived invites a step- by-step (no
nn
ative or descripti
ve)
stud y
of
arg
um
entativ
e
proce
dures b
uilt
of
dyadic
ac
tio n-reactio n pa ir
s.
By
co
ntr
as
t, rhetor-
ical speech
es
are
non-int
eractive eve
nt
s
in
which "the rhetori
ca
l sp
ea
ker h
as
to de
al
with a
multip
li
city
of
often i
nco
nsiste
nt
a
ttitud
es
amo ng the audience me
mb
ers" (Blair,
20
12,
291

Disturbing argume
nt
p. 159). This
ca
ll
s for a st udy
of
the
argumentative
pro
cess taking place under
th
e c
ontin
ge
nt
o
pp
o
rtuniti
es
and requ
ir
eme nts
of
the
rh
etorical situati on. O ne crucial t
as
k of a rheto r is to
meet the d emands
of
a composite, het
erogeneo
us audience witho
ut
direct i
nt
eracti ve en
gage-
me
nt
. T he view we o
bt
a
in
is
sc
hematically
ca
pt
ur
ed
in
Fig
ur
e 44.1.
lnst
ea
d of con
tin
u
in
g the th
eo
reti
ca
l debates
be
t
wee
n these
tw
o perspecti ves o n arg
um
en-
tati on,
we
tak
e a di
ff
ere
nt
angle o pened by constantly evolving
informat
ion and co
mmun
ica-
tio n tec
hn
ol
og
i
es
.
Co
mmuni
ca
tion
sc
holars
exam
i
nin
g to day's f
nt
ernet- based public sphere
pi
c
tur
e
int
eractio n
thi
s w
ay
(see
Fi
g
ur
e 44.2).
Ar
g
um
e
nt
ation
in
such an
int
erac ti ve enviro n
me
nt
consists
of
actio n- reaction elements
(n
ote
the
do
uble a
rro
ws),
but
also requires
arg
ue
rs
to
a
ddr
ess
a multiplicit y
of
a
tt
i
tud
es and
positi
on
s - and no t j ust those
of
a largely s
il
ent
audience,
but
rather
of
acti
ve
interl
oc
ut
ors
arguing w ith each other
in
a complex
we
b
of
disc
ur
sive relati on
s.
T he distinctio ns be
tw
een
rheto
ri
ca
l and dialecti
ca
l co
mmuni
ca
tio n a
pp
ear to co
ll
apse here.
Rhetoric
Speaker
Dialectic
A (Pro) B (Con)
ｾ
ｅ＠
A B C D
(Composite) audience
ｆＨｾｵ
ｲ
･＠
44. ·t Dial
ec
tica l a
nd
R h
eto
rica l A rg
um
en
ta
tion in the P
ub
lic Sphere
Nol
e:
Arrows i
nd
icate co
mmun
icatio n in the d irect ion
of
th
e ar row; th us do
ub
le ar
row
=
int
er
act
io n.
Fig
ur
e 44.2 Interacti on in t he N
etwo
rk
ed Pu blic
Sph
ere
Sou
r
ce:
Hsu and Pa
rk
(20
11
)
Note: T he a
uth
or
s an alyzed
"Tw
itt
er ne t
works"
among
rbe
mem
bers o f the 18th (Sou
th
) Korean
Natio nal Assembl y in
2009.
292

Tweeting the Arab Spring
This
s
hort
ex
po
sitio n leads
us
ro
two
po
int
s. First,
if
th
e novel
po
ss
ibilities
of
ne
twork
ed
co
mmuni
ca
tion
brin
g
about
fund
amental c
han
ges to interac
tion
s (see
Bou-Franch,
Lor
ezo-
Du
s,
&
Garces-Conej
os Blir
vic
h, 2012; He
rring
, 1999),
th
en
argumenta
tion
sc
holars
am
i
ca
ble
to
th
e
notion
of
argument
atio n as reasoning-in-i
nteraction
s
hould
updat
e
their
und
er-
sta
ndin
g
of
int
erac
tion
when
study
ing
arg
um
e
nt
in
th
e ne
tw
o
rked
public s
ph
ere. Second,
th
e
not
ion
of
networked
int
eraction
bring
s a
bout
some
ex
plicit challenges to
theorizing
arg
um
en-
tation,
including
,
but
not li
mited
to,
th
e
rhetor
i
c-d
ialec
ti
c divid
e.
We
co
nfront
novel f
ea
tur
es
that do
not
fit
the
cl
ass
i
ca
l -
but
still
tr
e
nding-
distinctions.
T he
obvious
e
mpiri
cal
question
arise
s:
What
pr
ecisely are these n
ew
features?
In
th
e
fo
ll
ow
in
g sec
tion
we
focus
on
one
element
of ne
tw
orked arg
um
en
tati
on
-
th
e way
Arabic-
spea
kin
g
Tw
itt
er u
se
rs
man
age
their
disag
reement
network
as
th
ey express
and
discu
ss
th
eir
poin
ts
of
vi
ew
in
rel
ation
to
the
multiple
issues
that
are at stake
in
the
co
nt
ext of
th
e
Ar
ab
Sp
rin
g.
Managing the Disagreement in a Twitter Interaction
T he
argumentat
ive
int
erac
tion
on
Twitter
that
we
analyze was triggered by a
tw
eet
from
Bassem Youssef,
th
e host of a po
pul
ar
sa
tirical news
pro
g
ram
bro
adcast by a private
Egy
ptian
television sta
tion
(often co
mp
ared b
ot
h
in
te
rm
s
of
style a nd
popul
a
rit
y
to
The Daily Show i n
the
United
States). Youssef is a
popul
ar
Tw
i
tt
er
u
se
r,
with
mor
e
th
an 1.7
milli
on followers
and
over 7,000
po
sted
tw
eets.
Hi
s
tw
eets are usually re
tw
eeted and often tri
gger
discussions. In
the
int
erac
tion
we analyze, his initial
tw
eet,
on
Jul
y 3,
20
13, was re
tw
eeted 1,881
tim
es, was
mar
ked
as
favorite 1,335
tim
es, and tri
ggere
d an
int
eracti o n in
whic
h
20
other
Twitter
users
con
tribut
ed a
tot
al
of42
twe
e
ts
,
as
ofJu
ly 22,
20
13. In 8
of
the
tw
eets, pa
rti
cipa
nt
s a
ddr
essed
o
nl
y Youssef;
in
the rema
inin
g
34
tw
eet
s,
participants addressed
other
Twitt
er users, too .
The
res
ult
is six small sub
gro
up
in
te
ra
ctions
th
at varied in l
ength
from
3
to
11
turn
s
and
in
qualit
y
from
mere ad hon·
tin
er
n exc
han
ges
to
ser
iou
s
ju
stify-a
nd-r
efute ones.
In
his initial
tw
eet, You
sse
f advanced
what
seem.s
lik
e an abstract opinion: "Inc
itin
g violence
and sectarian strife is
not
fr
eedo
m
of
expression
but
hate speech."1 However, ta
kin
g
th
e co
nt
ext
of
th
e
tw
eet
int
o acco
unt
,
th
e abstract opinion
ca
n also eas
il
y be
und
ers
tood
as
a
point
of vi
ew
conce
rnin
g
th
e latest deve
lopm
e
nt
s in the
Egyp
tian revoluti
on
that
sta
rt
ed
in
ea
rly 20
11
a
nd
was still
unfoldin
g in
mid
-2013 when
th
e exchange t
oo
k place.
The
tw
eet
ca
me
right
after
th
e
army removed
Pr
es
id
e
nt
Morsi from p
ower
and s
hut
down
four media c
hannel
s that were
cons
id
ered
th
e m
.a
in
media platforms for
the
Mu
s
lim
Brot
he
rhood
to w
hi
ch
th
e president
belonged.
In
the
co
nt
ext
of
the co
ntrov
er
sia
l meas
ur
es
taken by
th
e army, Youssef's initial
tweet
ca
n be seen
as
an
arg
um
.e
nt
in favor
of
the closure
of
the cha
nn
els:
The
closed cha
nnel
s
we
re
in
c
itin
g violence and sectarian stri
fe
an
d, therefore, they are guilty
of
hate speech ,
which
justifi
es
th
eir closure.
The
tweet
i
s,
in
th
at sense, an
argument
that
s
upport
s
two
"supr
a-
stan
dpoint
s"
that
were left
im
.p
licit: The
cl
ose
d channels are ,
izu
ilt
y
ef
hate
speec
h and Their
closure
was
the
ｲｾｲｺｨｴ＠
rn
easure
to
take. T hese t
wo
supra-sta
ndpoint
s
were
indeed th e subject
of
(d
is-)agre eme
nt
in most
of
the
responses in the
int
erac
tion
(disagreeme
nt
i
ss
ue
1)
.
The
Twitter
users
who
r
es
pond
ed to Youssef also
brou
g
ht
ot
her (related) i
ss
u
es
into the di
sc
u
ss
ion: the
performance
of
ot
her
(main
ly liberal) media channel
s,
namely
whether
or
not
th
ey were al
so
guilty
of
hate speech (disagreeme
nt
i
ss
ue 2); the credibility
ofYo
ussef, in particular his co
mmit
-
ment
to d
efending
free
dom
of
expression
and
his role
in
inciting violence (disagreem.ent i
ss
ue
3); and the i
ss
ue
of
the legitimacy
ofremoving
Mor
si from.
pow
er
(d
isagreem.ent i
ss
ue
4)
.
The
maj
or
it
y
of
the participa
nt
s addressed
th
e first
disagreement
i
ss
ue. M any
of
th
em al
so
had positions
in
relatio n to
one
or
mor
e
of
the
ot
h
er
i
ss
u
es
.
In
this polylogical exchange, the
2
93

Disturbing
arg
ument
multiple parties had
con
1pl
ex
positions,
comp
ri
si
ng
th
eir sta
ndpoint
s and arg
um
.e
nt
s in rela-
tion to the several i
ss
u
es
at s
tak
e.
Despite the high level
of
pola
ri
za
tion ,
whic
h charac terized
the
Egy
ptian scene in general and was clearly visible in the exch
ange
at i
ss
ue, there were
di
sagreeme
nt
s
wi
thin
the
sa
me
ca
mp.
For
exam
ple, T 8 (Twitterers will be refe
rr
ed
to
by
numb
er
to
preserve
anonymit
y)
was
of
th
e
opinio
n
that
th
e clos
ur
e
of
Mu
s
lim
Broth
erh
ood
channe
ls
was
not
rig
ht
becau
se
these ch
an
nels
we
re
not
guilty
of
hate speech
and
also
of
the
opinion
that liberal cha
nn
els were g
uilt
y
of
that.
T9,
who like
T8
di
sa
pproved
of
the closure
of
Mu
s
li
m
Brot
he
rhood
channels,
did
so
main
ly becau
se
the decision on w hether o r n
ot
these
chan nels were g
uilt
y
of
hate speech sho uld not have b
een
taken by the
militar
y (
but
rather by
the
co
urt
s
oflaw)
and al
so
cla
im
ed that Youssef was inciting violence.
Tll,
who,
lik
e
T8
chal-
len
ged
the
cla
im
th
at
th
e closed channels
were
guilty
of
hate speech , did so becau
se
of
the
ab
se
nce
of
clear
-c
ut
cr
it
eria
that
dis
tin
guish
fr
eedo
m of
ex
pr
ess
ion from hate s
pe
ech a
nd
did
not
seem to consid
er
Youssef
or
th
e liberal c
han
ne
ls g
uilt
y
of
hate speech o r incitem ent. T he
multiple i
ss
u
es
a
ddr
essed
within
th
e exchange,
an
d
th
e multiple positions taken by
th
e pa
rti
ci-
pa
nt
s regarding
th
em
.,
shaped the di sagreeme
nt
into
a
co
mplex ne
twork
in w
hi
ch
di
stinct
lin
es
of
disagreeme
nt
in relation to
diff
erent i
ss
u
es
crisscross and ove
rl
ap.
T he techni
ca
l design
of
Tw
itter was prese
nt
in
th
e way u
se
rs
man
aged their
di
sagreeme
nt
net
work.
Users
em
.ployed bri
ef
l
ang
uage and often left m.uch
of
their
po
sition and arg
um
e
nt
implicit
to
cope
wi
th th
e
140-c
haracter
limit
.
Twee
t
s,
ofte
n
am
biguou
s,
a
ll
owed
multiple
int
e
rpr
etations by the readers.
Somet
im
es,
th
e
am
big
uit
y was strat
eg
i
ca
ll
y employed to m.ini-
mize
disagreeme
nt
wit
h the readers. For exam.pie, at
turn
x
ii
,
Tll
tw
eeted: "t he
prob
lem is
who determ.in
es
th
e c
rit
eria
fo
r incit
eme
nt
?"
Wit
h
thi
s
ambig
uous
tw
eet,
T1
l could
co
nvey
a cha
ll
enge to Youssef's supra-standpoints without being co
mmitt
ed
to
it (he could choose
the
most
abstract
int
e
rpr
etation
of
his qu
es
tion and avoid
co
mmitm
e
nt
to
any spec
ifi
c o
pinion
related to
th
e closed cha
nn
els).2
Wh
en T14, who res
pond
ed to T
ll
at
turn
xv, discussed the
clo
se
d c
hannel
s in
parti
cular,
Tll
employed hu
mor
in
order
not
to ex
pr
ess
his
op
inion about
that .
Th
e sub
-exc
hange, which s
tart
ed
as
co
nfr
ontational and q
uit
e
ri
goro
u
s,
ended abruptly
but friendl
y.
This
co
uld be
partly
due to
th
e fact that
Tll
is a public figure who
wou
ld rath
er
avoid a positi
on
in
which
he seems to be defe nding
th
e
Mu
slim
Brot
he
rhood
and
also partly
because
T14
and
Tll
are
Tw
itter users
with
a
good
history
prior
to this exchange who
disagree w
ithin
th
e
sa
me
ca
mp, and w ho woul d rather n
ot
e
mbarr
ass
each o
th
er publi
ca
ll
y.
The
ab
rupt
e
ndin
g is actua
ll
y a characteri stic
of
th
e whole exchange, which
ca
n be traced
to
the tec
hn
ol
og
ical d
es
ign
as
we
ll
as
the
diff
erent
goals
Twitte
r u
se
rs have. In
th
e ca
se
of
this
Tw
itt
er
exchange, You
sse
f did
not
r
es
pond
to any
of
the
tw
eets that engaged his
po
siti
on
.
In
stead,
two
ho
ur
s after
th
e initia l
tweet,
he sent a
new
initi
al
tweet.
For a couple
of
ho urs
after, responses to the o
ld
initial t
wee
t ke
pt
co
min
g,
but
they
then stopped. O n the o ne
hand
,
the fast na
tur
e and high
numb
er
of
n
ew
tweets
coming
con
tribute
to the sh
ort
1 i
fe
of a
Tw
itter
exchange.
On
th
e
ot
h
er
hand, the goals of
th
e participants play an
important
role in deter-
minin
g whethe r a n exchange
of
op
inion develops
int
o an arg
um
entative exc
hang
e
where
o
pini
ons are discussed
or
remains at the stage
of
expressing opinions and
takin
g
po
sition,
only.
Some
Tw
itt
er
u
se
rs make it
cl
ea
r in
their
profile descriptio n that they are
und
er
no
obli
ga
ti
on
to
en
gage
in
any arg
um
e
nt
ative discussion
and
that
they reserve th e rig
ht
to
u
se
their pages
as
venues
fo
r non
-co
nflic t
or
ie
nt
ed socialization.
Theoretical Implications
Man
y
of
these qualiti
es
have been ob
se
rved
in
context
othe
r
than
Tw
itt
e
r,
notably
in
th
e o
ld
Intern
et
Re
lay Chat syste
m,
which affords s
im
ilar parrern
of
multi-party, 140
-c
har
ac
ter per
294

Tweeting
th
e Arab Spring
tu
rn
, quick back-and
-fo
rth
exchang
es
pro
ne
to
irr
elevance,
in
c
om
.pleteness,
and
ad
h.
omine
1n
attacks (Weger &
Aakhu
s,
2003
).
But
even such s
tudi
es
investigating
th
e affordances and
cons
tr
a
int
s of o
nlin
e argu
mentation
do
n
ot
fully e
mbr
ace
th
e new
th
eo
riz
in
g about
th
e
net
wo
rked public sphere
th
at has since beco1
ne
promin
e
nt
. N e
tw
orked c
ommuni
ca
tion
thro
ugh di gital medi a
ca
lJ
s
fo
r a
new
conce
ptu
al
par
adigm partly gr
as
ped in
th
e c
urr
e
nt
cl
uste r o f "ne t
wo
rked " concept
s:
from
big notio ns o f "ne
tw
o
rk
ed society" (Castell
s,
1995),
"net
wo
rked se
lf"
(Papachari
ss
i, 2011), "net
wo
rked public spher
e"
(Be
nkl
e
r,
2
00
6), to mo re
concre te and arg
um
e
nt
a
ti
vely relevant ana lyses of "ne
tw
orked i
ss
ues"
(M
arres,
2006)
and
"net
wo
rked publics" (Varn eli
s,
2008).
Our
ow
n
cl
a
im
is more c
ircum
sc
ribed: T hrough radi-
ca
ll
y cha nged co
ndition
s
fo
r arg
um
e
nt
ation over
co
mput
er ne
tw
ork
s,
arg
um
entatio n it
se
lf
beco
m
.es
diff
erent. In pa
rti
cular, arg
um
enta
ti
ve co
ntributi
ons
to
such a ne
tw
ork are signifi-
c
an
tly
diff
ere
nt
fro m co
ntributi
ons to
pu
blic speaking before big audiences and to enclosed
interactions be
tw
een two, or ve ry few,
int
e
rl
ocutors.
In
order to outline these
diff
erences, we
start fro m
th
e
di
stinction b etween " technol
og
ic
al
networks" (e.g., the Interne
t)
, "social
netwo
rks"
(e
.g., one's g
roup
of
frie
nd
s), and "arg
um
e
nt
ation ne
tw
orks"
whi
ch re
nd
er
th
e
discursive
mani
fes
tatio ns of ne
tw
orked relati on
s.
We propose
th
at "arg u1ne
nt
atio n net
wo
rks"
ca
n be analyzed
throu
gh
th
e no
ti
on of poly-
log
ue. In the s
impl
es
t definition, a polyl
og
ue is a
fo
rm. of
di
al
og
ue
th
at involves mo re
th
an
ju
st
two
sp
ea
kers (Ke
rbr
at
-O
recc
hi
o
nni
,
2004).
However, ar
J!
um
e
nt
a
ti
ve
polyl
og
u
es
are b
es
t
defined th rough a much
bro
ader
se
t o f definitional qualiti
es
th
an
ju
st man
y-
t
o-
man y
int
erac-
tion (Le wiriski, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; M oha
mm
ed, 2013a, 2013b).
Th
ey
in
volve mult
ipl
e
par
t
ies,
th
at i
s,
(o
ft
en co
ll
ecti ve) age
nt
s
with
dis
tin
ct positions on an i
ss
ue; by definition, th e n,
arg
um
entatio n and co
unt
er
-a
rg
um
e
nt
ation revolve s
imultan
eously aro
und
multiple p
os
itions
(
ra
th
er
than
ju
st
tw
o, e.g., simple pro and co n) on a sing le i
ss
ue, or
ind
eed a
round
multiple
iss
ues;
arguers
ar
e a
tt
entive to achievin g rnultiple arg
um
entative l
y-
releva
nt
J!Oa
ls and to
managing multiple levels of a
ddr
essees.
As a r
es
ult, arg
um
e
nt
ative polyl
og
u
es
may
la
ck a
fi
xe
d
focus
fo
r (co
unt
er
-)
reaso
nin
g: T hey are constantly op en to expansio ns
of
c
ompl
ex
disagr
ee-
me
nt
ne
tw
orks in vario us
dir
ections dis
tin
ct parti
es
fi
nd releva
nt
to
th
e i
ss
u
es
di
sc
ussed. In a
ll
these
se
nses, polyl
og
u
es
are
quit
e
unlik
e closely reg
im
e
nt
ed di
sc
ur
sive
pro
ce
dur
es
be
tw
een
the
propone
nt
and oppone
nt
focu
se
d on
one
i
ss
ue - typically
im
ag
in
ed to be
th
e loci of
ration al public arg
um
ent.
Wh
at does it amo
unt
to in
pr
acti ce? O
ur
anal
ys
is
ofTw
itt
er
rn
.essages ex
hibit
s some crucial
fea
tures of polyl
og
u
es.
To
start
with
, disagreeme
nt
, ra
th
er
th
an revolving a
round
a
unit
ary
sp
ace
delin
ea
ted by a s
in
gle speech act Uackson , 1992), develo ps
int
o a co
mpl
ex and open-
ended
ne
tw
or
k.
O
nlin
e di
sc
u
ssa
n
ts
extend
th
eir arg
um
e
nt
s
fo
r
and
aga
in
st
th
e multiple i
ss
u
es
and positions debated
in
a
po
lyl
og
ue in various
dir
ec
tion
s.
As a r
es
ult
,
diff
ere
nt
lin
es
of
di
sc
u
ss
io n crissc ro
ss
and overlap. This happens
in
instance
wh
en subg
roup
s em erge to
(s
imul-
tan
eo
usl
y)
di
sc
u
ss
particula r
po
ints.
Moreover,
man y t
wee
ts
(a
t least potentia
ll
y)
co
ntribut
e
to
mo
re
th
an one such di
sc
u
ss
ion.
Some
inter
pr
etive ambig
uit
y (
po
ss
ibly u
se
d s
tr
at
eg
i
ca
ll
y)
can aid in
thi
s goa
l.
Finall
y,
th
e
notion
of
an a
ddr
essee of a message bec
om
es
quit
e compl ex:
T h rough the tec
hn
ol
og
ical affordances
ofTwi
tt
er,
di
scussa
nt
s can
ex
plicitly a
ddr
ess
nmltiple
(layers of) recipie
nt
s;
co
ntribut
e
to
a ch osen # h
as
ht
ag; and spea k to, in o
ur
case,
th
e global
and no do ubt het
erogen
eous au
dience
of Arabic spea kers
wh
o eas
il
y ca n and do sp
ea
k back.
Ove
rall , po lyl
og
u
es
ca
rri
ed over
com
muni
ca
ti
on ne
tw
orks
su
ch
as
Twitt
er
depa
rt
in many
crucial respects
from
what
we
typically take to be a reasonable public arg
um
e
nt
, whether
a
pp
roached dialectically
or
rhetor
i
ca
ll
y.
Int
erne
t u
se
rs quickl y ad a
pt
to the n
ew
a
ff
ordances
and cons
tr
a
int
s
of
net
worked
argumentation
an
d, w ithout much conce
rn
for the
th
eo
re
ti
ca
l
compli
ca
tio ns th is emails.
they
co
ntinu
e engaging in a
publi
c arg
um
e
nt
- at
tim
es
reasona
bl
y,
295

Disturbing arg
um
e
nt
at
tim
es hopelessly di
sa
ppoin tingl
y.
In
our
view, such
pr
ac
ti
ces
of
net
wo
rked arg
um
e
nt
ati
on
are yet to be p
ro
perly a
ppr
aised,
beyond
the classic acco
unt
s o
ff
ere
d by dialecti c and
rhet
or
ic.
Not
es
1.
T he
tweets
in th e i
nt
er
actio
n ana l
yzed
are
all in Arabic except one . T hey
were
tra nslated
fo
r the
purpose
of
this st
ud
y b y th e second au thor.
2. T he n
ee
d to b e bri
ef
can
of
co
ur
se also hin
der
the de
ve
lop
me
nt
of
a ratio n a I a rg
um
e
nt
at
ive exchan ge.
Tw
itter users o fte n
fi
nd th e mselv
es
in need
of
cla ri
fy
i
ng
the
ir
positio ns
aft
er they have bee n
mi
sinte
rpr
ete
d.
So
me
of
the user
s,
such
as
T l8, post
two
or m ore
twe
e
ts
in a qu ick sequence to
con vey the
ir
id
ea prope
rl
y a
nd
avoid th at.
References
Be
nkler,
Y.
(2006).
The wea
lth
of
11
et
wo
rks:
I-l
ow
socia
l
pro
d1.1
c
ti
o11
lm11
sfo
m1
s
111
arke
ts a
11d
fr
ee
dom. N
ew
Haven, C N : Yale
Uni
versit y
Pr
ess.
va
n
Be
nth
em ,
J.
(2009)
. For
ewo
rd. In I. R ah wan & G.
R.
Sima ri (Eds.
},
Argi1
111en
ta
ti
o
11
i11
a
rt
ific
ial
i11t
el-
li
ge11ce
(pp. vii- vi i
i)
. D or
drec
ht, N
L:
Springe
r.
Blair,
].
A. (2012).
Rh
eto
ri
c, d ialectic, and l
og
ic as re
la
ted to
arg
um
en
t.
Phil
oso
ph
y r
111
d
Rh
et
ori
c,
45
,
1
48
- 164.
Bo
u- Fra nc h, P., L
orezo-
Du
s,
N., & Garces
-C
onejos Blitv ich, P. (2012).
Soc
ial
int
eraction in YouTube
text-
based polyl
og
u
es
: A stu
dy
of
co
herence. )0
1m
1al
of
Co
111
p
11
te
r-
Mediated Con
111
n
11
1.iw
ti
o
11
, "/7(
4)
,
501-52
1.
Caste
ll
s,
M . (1
995).
The
ne
tw
o
rk
soc
i
ety.
Oxfo
rd, U
K:
Bl
ackwe
ll.
va
n
Ee
meren ,
F.
H., & G r
oo
te
nd
orst, R .
(200
4). A sysle
111
a
ti
c t.heory
of
ai
;Q
1m1
e
11/
a
ti
o11
.
Cam
brid
ge,
UK
:
Ca
mbridge
Uni
versity
Pr
ess.
Ha
mblin
,
C.
L.
(1
970).
Fa
ll
ac
i
es
. Lo
nd
on ,
UK
: M ethuen.
Hample, D ., Jo nes, A . K., & A
ver
b
ec
k, J.
M.
(2009)
. The rationality en gin e : H
ow
do a rguers d
ea
l
spon
ta
neously w
ith
fa
llacies? In S. Ja
co
bs (Ed
.)
, Co
11
ce
rn
i11
,Q r
11
;
e1.1
111
en
t (
pp
.
307
- 317). Was
hin
gto n,
D C : N atio nal
Co
mmuni
cation Association.
H
er
ring,
S.
C. (1
999)
.
lnt
eractio nal coherence in
CMC.
j oumal of
Co
n1
pu
ter-Mediated
Co
111m1mi
ca
ti
o
11
,
4( 4) . R
et
rieved from
http
://
jcmc.
indi
ana.e
du
/vol
4/
i
ss
u
e4
/ he
rrin
g
.html
Hsu,
C.
!., & Park, H. W. (20
11
).
Soc
iol
ogy
of
hype
rlink
n
etwo
rks
of
Web
1.
0, We b 2 .0, a
nd
Tw
i
tte
r:
A case s
tud
y
of
South Korea.
Socia
l
Sc
i
enc
e Co
111pu
t
er
R
e11
ie
11
1,
29(3),
354-368
.
Jack son , S. (1
992).
"V
irtu
al sta
ndp
oints" and the
pr
agmati
cs
of
co
nver
sa
tion al arg
um
ent. In
F.
H .
va
n
Ee
m
ere
n, R .
Groo
tendorst, ]. A. B lair, &
C.
A. Will a rd (Eds.),
ａｾｑ
ＱＱＱＱＱ
･ＱＱ
Ｏ
｡
ｴｩ
ｯ
ＱＱ＠
i
llu111i11
ated
(pp.
260
-269).
Am
sterdam ,
NL:
SicSa
t.
Jackson , S., & Jacob
s,
S. (1
980).
S
tru
c
tur
e
of
conversat
ional
arg
um
en t:
Pr
ag
matic bases
fo
r the
en thym eme . Q 1wrte
rly
)
01.1
mal
of
Sp
eec
h, 66(3), 25 l- 265.
Jo
hn
son , R .
H.
, & Blai r,
].
A.
(1
977).
Lo,Qi
ca
l
ｳ･ＡｦＭ､ｾｦ･ＱＱ
ｳ
･
Ｎ＠
Toronto
, O
N:
M
cGraw-
Hill
Ryerson.
K
erbr
at
-O
recchioni,
C.
(2004).
Introdu
cing po lylog ue. J
o1mwl
of
P
ra
,e
n1r1ti
cs,
36(
1), 1- 24.
Kr
abbe,
E.
C.
W.
(2000).
Mee
tin
g in t he Ho use
of
Ca
ll
i
as
:
Rh
e
tor
ic
an
d dia lecti
c.
A1;Q1.
1111
e
11/
a
ti
o
11
,
"/4(3), 205- 2 17.
Lew
i1
1s
ki , M. (2012).
Publi
c deliber
at
ion
as
a
po
lyl
og
ue: Cha
ll
e
nge
s
of
arg
um
e
nt
a
ti
on an al
ys
is and
eva
lu
atio n. In
H.].
Rib
eiro (Ed.),
In
s
id
e mg
um
ent
s:
Lo,
eic
mid
th
e s
tu
dy
of
｡ｾｑ
ｩＱＱＱＱ
･
ＱＱｴ
｡
ｴｩ
ｯ
ＱＱ＠
(pp. 223- 245) .
Newcastl e upo n
Ty
ne, UK :
Ca
mbrid
ge Scholars
Publi
shing.
L
ew
i1
1ski, M .
(20
13a). Debatin g
multipl
e positi
on
s in
multi-p
a
rty
on
li
ne
de
lib
er
at
ion: Sides, position
s,
and cas
es
.j
o
urn
al
of
ａｾ
ＱａＱＱＱ
･
ＱＱＯ
｡
ｴｩ
ｯ
ｮ＠
i11
Co
11/
ext, 2(1) , 1
51
-177
.
L
ew
i1
1s
ki, M. (2013 b , M ay
22
-26). Polyl
og
ical falla cie s:
Are
ther e a n
y?
In
D. M o
hamm
ed &
M . Lew inski (Eds.),
Virtu
es
ｾｦ＠
Aw
1m
entat
ion
.
Pr
o
cee
din
gs
of
1/i
e 10th lnlema
tion
al
Co
1!
fe
re
11
ce
of
th
e
0
111
ar
io
Soc
iety for the Study
of
A1
;Qu
111
e
11t
a
ti
o
11
(O
SSA
) (pp. 1- 1 ) .
Win
ds
or
,
ON:
OSSA.
Ma
rr
es, N .
(2006).
N
et
-W
ork is
fo
rmat
wo
rk: Issue ne
tw
orks a
nd
the
sites
of
civ
il
socie ty politi
cs
.
In
J.
Dea
n,J. Asherso n , & G. Lov
ink
(
Ed
s.).
ｒ
･ｦｯｮＱＱ
｡ｬｬｩＱＱ
Ｌ
ｾ＠
polirics:
.\
'e
iwo
rk
ed w
1111111mi
ca
ti
o
11
s
a11d
glo
bal
ci
ll
il
soc
iety (pp. 3- 17).
Lo
nd
on ,
UK
: R o
ut
le
dge.
296

Tweeting
th
e Arab Spring
Moham1ned, D. (2013a).
Hit
two birds with one stone: Strat
eg
ic manoeuvring in the afte
r-Mubar
ak
era. In
A.
L. Sella
mi
(E
d.),
Ar
g
11111
e
matio11,
Rhet
or
i
c,
De
bat
e
a11d
Ped
rteog
y:
Pr
ocee
din
gs
ｾ
ｦ＠
th
e 2
01
3
4th
/11t
e
rnati
o
1wl
C
onf
eren
ce
on
ａｾｾＱＱＱＱＱ･ｊｊｴ｡ｴｩｯＱＱ
Ｌ＠
R
l1
eto
ri
c,
De
bat
e,
and
Pe
da
,
eo
,ey (pp. 95-
11
6)
. D oh
a,
Januar y
11-13, 2
01
3.
Moh
a
mm
ed, D. (2013b).
Pur
suing multiple goa ls in E
urop
ean parliamentar y debat
es
:
EU
immi
gration
polici
es
as
a
ca
se
in
point.J
o
urn
al
of
ａ
Ｑ
［ｾ
ＱＱＯｬＯ
･
ＯＯｴ
｡
ｴｩｯ
ｮ＠
in
C
ont
ex
t,
2
(1
),
47
-74.
Papachari
ss
i, Z . (Ed.) (2011) . Net
wo
r
ke
d
se
!f
:
Id
entit
y,
co
mnn1nity,
and
culture
on
soc
ial
network s
it
es
. New
York:
Routl
edge.
S
pr
an zi, M . (2
011
). The a
rt
.
of
dial
ec
ti
c
be
t
wee
n
di
al
og
ue a
11d
rh
e
tori
c: The A
ri
stote
lian
t
raditi
o
n.
Am
sterdam,
NL
:
John
Be
nj
a
min
s.
Varneli
s,
K . (Ed .) (2008). Net
wo
rk
ed pu
bli
cs.
Cambridge,
MA
:
MIT
Pr
ess
.
Weger, H., & Aa
khu
s,
M.
(2
00
3) . Arguing in Internet ch at ro
om
s:
Ar
g
um
e
nt
a
ti
ve
ada
pt
a
ti
ons to chat
room d
es
ign and s
om
e c
on
se
quences
fo
r public deliberation at a distance. A 1g
ut11
eJJ
ta
ti
on
a/Id
Ar
/rJ
owcy,
40(1),
23-38
.
Wenzel,
J.
W. (1990).
Thr
ee perspec
ti
ves
on argument:
Rh
eto
ri
c,
dialec
ti
c,
logi
c.
ln
J.
Sc
hue tz &
R . Trapp (Eds.), Persp
ec
tiv
es
on
｡
ｾ
ｧ
ｵＱＱＱ
･ＱＱ
ｴ
｡
ｴｩ
ｯ
ＱＱＺ＠
Essays
in
ho11
or
of
Wa
y11
e
Bro
ckriede (pp. 9- 26) .
Pro
spect
Heig
ht
s,
IL:
Waveland.
297