Argumentation Research Articles

Ignoring Qualifications as a Pragmatic Fallacy: Enrichments and Their Use for Manipulating Commitments

The fallacy of ignoring qualifications, or secundum quid et simpliciter, is a deceptive strategy that is pervasive in argumentative dialogues, discourses, and discussions. It consists in misrepresenting an utterance so that its meaning is broadened, narrowed, or simply modified to pursue different goals, such as drawing a specific conclusion, attacking the interlocutor, or generating humorous reactions. The “secundum quid” was described by Aristotle as an interpretative manipulative strategy, based on the contrast between the “proper” sense of a statement and its meaning taken absolutely or in a certain respect. However, how can an “unqualified” statement have a proper meaning different from the qualified one, and vice versa? This “linguistic” fallacy brings to light a complex relationship between pragmatics, argumentation, and interpretation. The secundum quid is described in this paper as a manipulative argument, whose deceptive effect lies in its pragmatic dimension. This fallacy is analyzed as a strategy of decontextualization lying at the interface between pragmatics and argumentation and consisting of the unwarranted passage from an utterance to its semantic representation. By ignoring the available evidence and the presumptive interpretation of a statement, the speaker places it in a different context or suppresses textual and contextual evidence to infer a specific meaning different from the presumable one.

Questions in argumentative dialogue

Despite questions having a long-standing history in theoretical linguistics, the interface between empirically grounded corpus linguistics of questioning behaviour and analytically driven pragmatic theory of question structure and context has received significantly less attention. This paper aims to contribute to this field of research by showing that a four-way categorisation into question types, namely, pure questioning, assertive questioning, rhetorical questioning and challenge questioning, allows us to capture and represent questions in over two million words in natural language argumentative dialogue. In this type of dialogue questioning has been claimed to serve as the engine that drives the shape and development of a discourse. Our investigation covers three genres of argumentative discourse in which questions play a key role, namely political debates, moral dilemmas and sessions of participatory deliberative democracy. Through deep algorithmic analysis of the data, we test a variety of hypotheses from argumentation and linguistic theory, clearly demonstrating for the first time that (particular types of) questions directly catalyse argument structure and that the illocutionary consequences of non-canonical questions are much more varied than previously thought.

Long-Lasting Conceptual Change in Science Education: The Role of U-shaped Pattern of Argumentative Dialogue in Collaborative Argumentation.

Meaningful learning for conceptual change in science education should aim to help students change their existing misconceptions to develop an accurate understanding of scientific concepts. Although collaborative argumentation is assumed to support such processes, its value for conceptual change is unclear. Moreover, the roles of argumentative dialogue should be considered in studies on collaborative argumentation. In the present study, using a controlled experiment, we examined the value of collaborative argumentation for conceptual change in science education while fully considering the roles of argumentative dialogue. Twenty-three postgraduate students were each allocated to one of two conditions (individual argumentation [control group] and collaborative argumentation [experimental group]) and participated in two argumentation activities. The results revealed that collaborative argumentation had a delayed but long-lasting effect on conceptual change in science education (i.e., conceptual change induced by collaborative argumentation did not immediately indicate a significant improvement at the moments of argumentation but showed a significant improvement during the delay period). Collaborative argumentation provided opportunities for change in cognitive, ontological, intentional, and other aspects of learning. Dialogue protocol analysis revealed that long-lasting conceptual change was associated with a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue (i.e., two high and one low: both deliberative argumentation and co-consensual construction frequently occurred, while disputative argumentation rarely occurred) in collaborative argumentation. A third argumentation activity was then conducted to confirm this unexpected finding. The results confirmed an association between long-lasting conceptual change and a U-shaped pattern of argumentative dialogue in collaborative argumentation. The current study sheds light on the value of collaborative argumentation for long-lasting conceptual change, deepening our understanding of whether conceptual gains from argumentation activities were contingent on a particular type of verbal dialogue powered by collaborative argumentation. Implications for science education were discussed.

HABERMASIAN DISCOURSE THEORY OF MORALITY: A CRITIQUE

In this present work, I have made an attempt to discuss the concept of discourse ethics with its basic characteristics, and finally the main problems concerning Habermasian discourse theory of morality. Discourse ethics is an approach to ethics that is founded upon rules of dialogue, and which encourages participants to approach an ethical dilemma with both pure rational reason and experience firmly in hand. Habermasian discourse ethics is widely known as deliberative democratic theory often praised for its ideals. The concept of communicative action plays a central role in the development of Habermas discourse morality. It is a theory of morality, which claims that moral norms concerning justice can be tested rationally in an argumentative dialogue the ideal precondition is that dialogue should be free from domination. With its various characteristics, some main problems concerning Habermasian Discourse ethics is also discussed in this paper.

ArguMente: An Online Argumentation System for Formal and Non-Formal Education

ArguMente is an online system that offers two types of learning spaces. On the one hand, a close group space that implements a student-centred teaching strategy, the purpose of which is to automate the Dialogue Design System model for written argumentation (DDS). On the other hand, it offers a space for the exercise of an argued debate under a non-formal environment of education that calls for the creation of learning communities. Experiences for teaching argumentative skills and for teaching teachers have taken place through the first space, the closed classroom, while the second space, the open classroom, is being used to promote the autonomous argumentative dialogue.

Embodied Argumentation in Young Children in Kindergarten

In kindergarten, children are usually engaged with both verbal activities and non-verbal activities, often requiring the manipulation of physical objects. During technical tasks (e.g., problem solving), children can use argumentation as one of the languages of science that mediates how they interact with the surrounding world. In this paper, we focused on technical tasks in kindergarten in order to understand to what extent activities requiring the manipulation of physical objects also leave space for argumentation. The study involved 25 children engaged in three problem-solving activities requiring the manipulation of Lego® and some recycled materials. To analyze the non-verbal (embodied) side of the argumentative activities, we firstly identified the argumentative structure of each exchange involving the participants. Then, we focused on segments of “incomplete” argumentative dialogues (i.e., presenting only some elements typical of children’s argumentation) by appealing to multimodal representations (speech, gestures, and physical objects). The findings of the study showed that even apparently incomplete exchanges can have an argumentative function generated by non-verbal elements of the interactions. Investigating the role of embodied argumentation during technical tasks in kindergarten can allow teachers to recognize and further develop children’s argumentative resources.

Learning to Argue Through Dialogue: a Review of Instructional Approaches

AbstractOver the past 20 years, a broad and diverse research literature has emerged to address how students learn to argue through dialogue in educational contexts. However, the variety of approaches used to study this phenomenon makes it challenging to find coherence in what may otherwise seem to be disparate fields of study. In this integrative review, we propose looking at how learning to argue (LTA) has been operationalized thus far in educational research, focusing on how different scholars have framed and fostered argumentative dialogue, assessed its gains, and applied it in different learning contexts. In total, 143 studies from the broad literature on educational dialogue and argumentation were analysed, including all educational levels (from primary to university). The following patterns for studying how dialogue fosters LTA emerged: whole-class ‘low structure’ framing with a goal of dialogue, small-group ‘high structure’ framing with varied argumentative goals, and studies with one-to-one dialectic framing with a goal of persuasive deliberation. The affordances and limitations of these different instructional approaches to LTA research and practice are discussed. We conclude with a discussion of complementarity of the approaches that emerged from our analysis in terms of the pedagogical methods and conditions that promote productive and/or constructive classroom interactions.

Adversariality in Argumentation: Shortcomings of Minimal Adversariality and A Possible Reconstruction

Adversariality in Argumentation: Shortcomings of Minimal Adversariality and A Possible Reconstruction

Argumentation, Ideology and Discourse in Evolving Specialized Communication

In the digital age, the transformation process of information into ‘knowledge’ is characterized by hyper-connected communities, where a potentially infinite amount of information is ubiquitously accessible to individuals or community users and is instrumental in the creation of shared knowledge, but also in building consensus across community participants, societal membership and grouping, through the argumentative ideological representation of assumptions, values and practices. This Special Issue of “Lingue e Linguaggi” on the theme Argumentation, Ideology and Discourse in Evolving Specialized Communication explores the interface between these three dimensions and combines an array of perspectives into a distinctly unified volume, offering synchronic, diachronic, comparative, interlinguistic and intercultural approaches over a range of specialized knowledge domains. The volume integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, making use of Corpus Linguistics, alongside other methods incorporated in theoretical approaches such as Critical Discourse Analysis, Appraisal Theory and Argumentation Theory, focusing on the pragma-linguistic features of different texts and genres, together with their ideological purposes for different audiences in various contexts of use. The collection of essays investigates argumentative styles and patterning along with the discursive socio-construction of ideology in the dynamics of recontextualization, rescripting and remediation which affect the multi-faceted nature of contemporary communication.

Argumentative topoi seen from a discourse analytic perspective

One core aspect of argumentation is the inferential reasoning that justifies the transition from the premises to the conclusion. Classical rhetoric accounted for such inference in terms of topoi (or topics), while contemporary approaches have introduced the notion of argumentation schemes, even if the two concepts still largely coexist. Different approaches exist to the analysis and classification of topoi/schemes. This paper ponders on how two different approaches, the Argomentum Model of Topics (AMT) and the pragma-dialectical account of schemes, can serve the purposes of discourse analysts interested in argumentation. While discourse analysis tends to approach topoi from a content-based perspective, in this paper the view is taken that relying on more formalised accounts may add methodological rigour to the analysis of real-life argumentation, while enhancing points of contact between discourse analysis and argumentation theory. In particular, the AMT and the pragma-dialectical schemes are applied to the analysis of arguments used in editorials on Brexit, with a focus on populism. Building on a previous study in which recurrent topoi were analysed drawing on a content-based approach, this paper will try to establish connections between the topoi thus identified and more formalised classifications of argument schemes, considering the pros and cons of the two approaches.

Contesting international trade agreements: argumentation patterning in embedded discourses

This chapter looks at the ideological positioning and argumentation patterning of three sets of interrelated data, which can be considered vertically organized in a hierarchical configuration: these sub-corpora consist of the drafts of a major International Trade Agreement, the TiSA, (Trade in Services Agreement), a series of revelations and exposures authored by WikiLeaks, and a collection of online publications produced by the campaigning group, Friends of the Earth International. The objective is to identify how a process of ‘entextualization’ is realized through the various discourses – from the normative codification of legislation, on to the detailed specialist exposition and critique from legal experts, and over to the affectively-charged discourse of resistance and protest in the public domain. The conceptual and explanatory frameworks for the analysis derive from two disciplinary fields, argumentative studies and discourse analysis, where the role of language studies in describing discursive construal has traditionally played rather different roles. The analysis of the corpus starts from a linguistic perspective, comparing and contrasting semantic profiling, topicalization, and verb usage over the three sub-corpora. Using accounts of argumentative structure and procedures – elaborating the notions of schema, frames, moves and strategies, it is possible to identify distinctive patterns of reasoning, revealed through linguistic indexicality. In this way, argumentation can be related to the three varying communicative contexts, their authorship, audiences and rhetorical purposes. This study is, therefore, an attempt to integrate the two fields of argumentation studies and discourse analysis more systematically, recognizing the mutual benefits this carries for both, providing a body of empirical evidence necessary to further theoretical models and theories of argumentation, on the one hand, while extending discourse analysis into more challenging areas of investigation and taking a wider textual perspective than has often been common to date.

“But what’s so bad about inequality?” Ideological positioning and argumentation in the representation of economic inequality in the British press

The aim of this chapter is to explore the discursive construction and representation of economic inequality in the British press in the period 2016-2019. For this purpose, the corpus consists of selected newspaper articles from three online newspapers The Guardian (liberal and left-leaning), The Telegraph and Daily Mail (traditionally conservative). A comparative analysis shows not only how the newspapers differ on the lexico-semantic and grammatical level in the discursive construction of key clusters around economic inequality, but also on the ideological argumentative level, in the way journalists position their ideas and engage their readers in order to defend and legitimize arguments. In their representation of economic inequality, the newspapers show through linguistic and argumentation analysis, whether they are aligned with the government, and as such broadly welcome greater wealth inequality, or whether, they actually resist current government policies. Hence, the main objective is to show how UK national newspapers have a double function in both reporting information, and also in construing an argument and aligning the reader to accept that argument. The methodological approach combines Corpus Linguistics (CL) with Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), informed by theories on epistemological and ideological positionings as forms of pragma-dialectical argumentation (van Eermeen 2017; White 2006).

Exploring ideological messages in newspaper editorials and news reports on the first human gene-editing case

This chapter explores evaluative standpoints, opinions and potentially ideologically charged messages in newspaper editorials and news reports covering the birth of the first human gene-edited twins. The corpus under analysis consists of British tabloid and broadsheet news reports and editorials covering the case. The analysis is carried out applying the combined paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis, Argumentation Theory and Appraisal Theory, with a predominantly linguistic focus. The evidence adduced indicates that most news reports and editorials pass negative evaluative messages starting from their headlines and ending with the local textual structures. The readership is oriented towards a given interpretation of the event using negative judgment and negative affect derived from the headline. The texts of news reports and editorials demonstrate overlapping sequences of evaluation and argumentation. News reports tend to provide the reader with a more explicit yet depersonalised evaluation of the event, as the responsibility for the opinion expressed is shifted to third parties through the mechanism of attribution. Editorials, on the other hand, tend to argue the preferred outlook by syntactic structures and, specifically, concessive constructions and concur-counter patterns.

Maximizing the potential and outreach of Department of Community Medicine and School of Public Health in COVID 19

Teaching and learning has existence from the earliest times of human civilization. Socrates in 300 BC involved his learners by dialectic method which has inspired philosophers for more than two thousand years. The argumentative dialogue based on oral questioning and answering process to stimulate critical thinking in the dialectic method allowed others to learn by self-generated deeper understanding.(1) The Gurukul teaching in the ancient vedic time encourages the students to stay in guru’s place (termed as Gurukul) where the education was delivered through scriptures describing vedas, rules of sacrifice, understanding secrets of nature and correlating them with their real life. In these times, the education was more organized and disciplined focusing upon memory retention and concentration(2). The learning through script and writing started in 3500BC where Egyptians developed alphabets from hieroglyphs prototype which was used either on stone monuments or on papyrus, a flexible paper like material.(3)The script was later adopted by Greeks (Phoenician writing system)(4) in 11th century and thereafter by China in 1400-2100BC (oracle bone script)

Роль судебной аргументации в эволюции законодательства и правоприменения

Роль судебной аргументации в эволюции законодательства и правоприменения

Analyzing College Students' Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Nanotechnology Issues Based on Idiocentrism and Allocentrism

Analyzing College Students' Dialogic Argumentation in the Context of Nanotechnology Issues Based on Idiocentrism and Allocentrism

Significance of Activity Theory Concepts for Qualitative Neuropsychology

The article analyses theoretical and methodological aspects of neuropsychology. Neuropsychology might be considered as a part of neuroscience, but also as the part of psychology. In this last choice, neuropsychology has to conceptualize the ways for studying of psychological process before passing to the level of relation, which exists between psychological processes and brain level in order to identify specific mechanisms or components of psychological processes related to the functioning of special brain zones. Such a study can be based on different general psychological theories. One of the possibilities is historical and cultural approach and activity theory. From the point of view of activity theory approach, brain functional systems might be understood as psycho-physiological dynamic mechanisms of actions and operations fulfilled by a subject. All actions of the subject are always accomplished within the context of one or another cultural activity. Neuropsychological level of analyses might be understood as the elementary functional level of human activity. Neuropsychological analysis might be organized as assessment of actions instead of assessment of isolated functions. The article shows the benefits and significance of activity theory general concept for the field of neuropsychological research and practice of assessment and rehabilitation. The discussion stresses the importance of argumentation of relation between general psychology and neuropsychology.

A distinção entre abdução e inferência da melhor explicação: a abordagem de Daniel Campos

Este artigo pretende oferecer uma apresentação e análise do artigo “On the distinction between Peirce’s abduction and Lipton’s Inference to the best explanation”, de Daniel Campos. Apresentamos uma reconstrução da argumentação de Campos a favor da distinção entre abdução e inferência da melhor explicação, enfatizando a interpretação de Campos sobre inferência da melhor explicação na perspectiva de Peter Lipton. Em contraposição a Campos, que defende uma distinção parcial entre abdução e a inferência da melhor explicação, neste artigo sugerimos uma distinção completa entre as formas de raciocínio.

Una propuesta de secuencia basada en el contexto, para la promoción de la argumentación científica en el aprendizaje de las reacciones químicas con estudiantes de educación técnico profesional

espanolEl proposito de este estudio fue analizar las limitaciones, posibilidades y condicionantes de una secuencia cuyo foco es la contextualizacion de los contenidos, abordando problemas reales y cercanos, permitiendo al estudiante poner en practica la teoria en situaciones autenticas, promoviendo el pensamiento critico y la argumentacion cientifica, en estudiantes de Educacion Media Tecnico Profesional. Se trabajo con una muestra de 50 estudiantes (14-17 anos) de un establecimiento educacional que imparte las carreras de Quimico Industrial y Explotacion Minera. La recoleccion de datos proviene de las actividades desarrolladas por los estudiantes respecto al el contenido de reacciones quimicas bajo el contexto minero, para promover el desarrollo en la argumentacion cientifica. Los resultados muestran que un alto porcentaje de los estudiantes, logran seleccionar una conclusion en base a pruebas y utilizar informacion de caracter disciplinar, socio-politico, etico y ambiental al momento de elaborar una argumentacion cientifica en un juego de roles EnglishThis work analyzes the limitations, possibilities and conditioning factors of a sequence whose focus is the contextualization of the contents, addressing real and close problems, allowing the student to put the theory into practice in authentic situations, promoting critical thinking and argumentation scientific, in students of Middle School Professional Technical. We worked with a sample of 50 students (14-17 years old) who study Industrial Chemistry and Mining. Data collection comes from the activities in which students participated in the content of chemical reactions under the mining context, to promote development in scientific argumentation. The results show that a high percentage of the students manage to select a conclusion based on tests and use the information of a disciplinary, socio-political, ethical, and environmental nature when preparing a scientific argument in a role play

Can Argumentation be Taught in School?

Can Argumentation be Taught in School?