From Lay Voice To "Expert" Voice: Counter-argument As A Discourse Strategy In Polylogue

Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aiming at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a standpoint. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach (PDA) to Argumentation Theory (AT) combines a dialectical view of argumentative reasonableness with a pragmatic view of the moves made in argumentative discourse. Counter-argument, a form of argumentation, is a speech act to doubt, object, or even rebut the more powerful expert voices in the context of power-talk.Polylogue is regarded as the most common communication mode in our daily interactions. This study, in the context of power-talk with multiple participants, qualitatively analyzes the data collected from the TV talk show "Wo Men" (Us) broadcasted by CCTV-1 in China, and answers the following research questions:(1) How do the more powerful participants discursively interact with the less powerful participants in polylogue?(2) How is counter-argument realized sequentially, structurally, and textually in each corresponding stage?(3) What are the communicative function(s) of counter-argument in polylogue?(4) What is the mechanism for counter-argument as a discourse strategy in polylogue?This study, on the basis of the close relation among Conversation Analysis (CA), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Pragma-Dialectical Approach (PDA) to Argumentation Theory (AT), proposes the analytical framework for the empirical research of counter-argument in the context of polylogue. By framework instruction and data analysis, this research finds out that the pragmatic view and the dialectical view of pragma-dialectical argumentation are closely interwoven in the whole process of counter-argument.Specifically, this study has two major findings. On the one hand, from the macro aspect, it is argued that the more powerful host and experts tend to raise, defend and conclude arguments. Such arguments, also known as expert voices, are expected to be received and accepted by the lay people. It is also concluded that counter-argument is the discourse strategy applied by the less powerful to doubt, challenge and even rebut the existing expert arguments.On the other hand, from the micro aspect, this study describes and evaluates counter-argument on the basis of the analytical framework. In the confrontation stage, the context of confrontational hints for counter-argument lies in that the more powerful maintain their own arguments frequently and inspires the less powerful to counter-argue to fight for their own rights to speak. In the opening stage, counter-argument begins with specific counter-arguing sentences, mainly negative statement and rhetorical question, to initiate counter-argument. The argumentation stage witnesses further expansion of counter-argument by storytelling and commenting. The concluding stage sees the effects achieved by counter-argument, mainly to challenge and to convince, elevating their lay voices to "expert" voices. The explanation of the mechanism for counter-argument is based on the pragmatic view of the four stages in which four speech acts are conducted, and the dialectical view of the reasonability achieved by the various sequential, structural and textual forms of counter-argument, which are interwoven along the four stages.This research has both theoretical and practical implications, enriching the study on argumentation, lay/expert voices, polylogue and media discourse, and providing an efficient strategy to all those who are discursively weak.