This study analyzes public hearings about same-sex marriage to show how the contexts that are established for citizens' and legislators' talk make arguments about the issue being disputed. Situated within the traditions of argument studies and discourse analysis, the article explores different meanings of “context.” The study evidences how two sets of context features created positive (or negative) stances toward the issue of same-sex marriage, and shows that how the controversy was formulated and how participation was designed gave distinct advantages to speakers advocating for (or against) same-sex marriage. The final section draws out implications of these legislative choices for citizen presenters and for the officials themselves as the enactors and guardians of democratic process.
Public Hearings about Same-Sex Marriage: How the Context “Makes” an Argument
Karen Tracy, Department of Communication, University of Colorado, Boulder. This paper extends a study that was presented at the 2011 National Communication Association/American Forensic Association Conference on Argumentation (Alta, Utah). Correspondence to: Karen Tracy, Department of Communication, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. USA. E-mail: Karen.Tracy@colorado.edu.
- Views Icon Views
- PDF LinkPDF
- Share Icon Share
- Tools Icon Tools
- Search Site
Karen Tracy; Public Hearings about Same-Sex Marriage: How the Context “Makes” an Argument. Qualitative Communication Research 1 March 2012; 1 (1): 83–107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/qcr.2012.1.1.83
Download citation file: