Pragma-dialectical Theory Of Argumentation Research Articles

Convincing in Pragma-Dialectics: A Critical Reassessment

What does it mean to convince? In the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, convincing is done by arguments. The perlocutionary act of convincing is fundamentally related to the illocutionary act of arguing. I propose a critical reassessment of this relationship. The arguing-convincing pair presents conceptual difficulties, I argue, both in the pragmatic description based on felicity conditions and in the dialectical one based on intersubjective procedures. To tackle these problems, I develop a proposal that takes the speakers’ non-verbal interaction with evidence, as opposed to their verbal interaction with one another, as the basis for understanding the resolution of differences of opinion. The proposal is compatible with the pragma-dialectical theory, provided some methodological adjustments are conceded.

Une réaction à la critique depuis les marges épistémologiques

In this paper, a reaction is presented to Siegel’s claim that the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation ignores or neglects epistemological viewpoints that he finds vital to any normative theory of argumentation. The focus is on the most important problems in Siegel’s argument: 1) the ambiguity of the term ‘argument’ and the alleged negligence of this ambiguity in pragma-dialectics; 2) the critical rational perspective of the pragma-dialectical account; and 3) the alleged negligence of the “abstract propositional sense” of argument in pragma-dialectics.

Strategic Manoeuvering in 2019 Campaign Speeches in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa: Extended Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

This article investigates how political candidates in the Eastern Cape Province in South Africa employed means of strategic manoeuvring during the provincial election campaigns of 2019. It assumes the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, by first reconstructing the argumentation structure, identifying the means of strategic manoeuvring, and finally, critically analysing the prototypical speech acts in the political campaign discourse. The data were collected from the isiXhosa newspaper I’solezwe LesiXhosa during the campaign from February to April 2019. The findings demonstrate commissives and assertives as the prototypical speech acts in the political argumentative discourse in the Eastern Cape Province. In addition, dissociation is manifested in multiple contexts to persuade the audience of the standpoint that the opposition parties are more visionary than the incumbent party, African National Congress.

ЛОГИКО-КОГНИТИВНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЯ ВОПРОСА-ПРЕФОРМЫ В АРГУМЕНТАТИВНОЙ ДИСКУССИИ

The article presents the results of the study of the discussion snippets in the form of question-answering structures using the “argumentative discussion” construct; the study was based on the scripts of video panel discussions on the YouTube platform. Involving the methodology of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation in part of the analytical reconstruction of argumentative discourse, the author does not take as a basis the concept of persuading a rational addressee, which is common in argumentative theory, but takes the idea of verifying the point of view of cognitive agents of communication. It allows to consider the dialogic structure as a multi-subject procedure for checking the objectivity of knowledge of the participants in the discussion. The purpose of the article is to explore the question utterance in the position of the preform in the question-answering unity. The article contains scientific data from the field of erothetic logic, which shows that the question can be interpreted as a fragment of reasoning. For the reconstruction of cue-question, the concept of symptosymmetric proportionality of the components of dialogical unities is used. We analyzed all speech units in dialogic syntagmas in the form of Argumentative Step. Such an analysis showed that the basis of the question contains elements that perform argumentative functions. The focal meaning of these elements is found in response cues. As the result, the symptosymmetric models Preform-thesis ↔ refutation by facts, Preform-thesis ↔ antithesis, Preform-clarification ↔ correction were obtained. The interim result of the study is that the cue-question in the position of the preform is also a marker of a violation of the logical-categorical norms of reasoning and ad hoc errors.

The Expressive Use of Adjectives in Metropolitan Anthony Bloom’s Religious Discourse

An overwhelming personality of the 20th century, Metropolitan Anthony Bloom was the spiritual head of the Russian Orthodox Church in Great Britain (1948-2003) who really raised the British people’s awareness of what Orthodoxy meant. He provided the realm of religious discourse with a particular outlook on Christianity (mainly sprung from his own revelation of the risen Christ), which he expressed in a perfectly natural and unsophisticated manner. Interestingly enough, Anthony Bloom and C. S. Lewis can be viewed as “kindred spirits”, as not only did they embrace Christianity after being non-believers, but their writing styles are also similar in that “both have an uncanny ability to explain difficult concepts with simple and engaging language” (“Beginning to Pray (A. Bloom)” [book review]). In Metropolitan Anthony’s view, Christian life represents the personal encounter with God. His discourse is in fact a place of encounters; it is where Eastern Orthodoxy meets Western spirituality, where the sacred realm meets the secular realm and, perhaps most importantly, where the metropolitan’s inner world meaningfully interacts with his addressees’ spiritual searches. We hereby examine the ways in which adjectives contribute to creating an image of a particular world in the following books: Living Prayer (1999a), School for Prayer (1999b), Meditations on a Theme: A spiritual journey (2003). Our approach relies on the Jakobsonian model (1960/1987) of language functions, Kinneavy’s (1980) Theory of Discourse, van Eemeren’s (2002) pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and various studies on religious discourse. The current paper reveals such discourse constants as the triadic pattern of adjectival constructions, the abundant use of the adjectives “real” and “true”, as well as the presence of adjectives in parallelism and repetition. All these expressive uses of adjectives contribute to the creation of a complex network in which the world of the Gospel, the discursive ethos (conveying the author’s attitude in its diversity) and the reader’s image intermingle in a most harmonious manner.

Journalists’ moves in political press conferences and their implications for accountability

Abstract Political press conferences are important spaces for public accountability because they give journalists the opportunity to scrutinize politicians’ decisions. However, the structure of press conferences poses specific constraints to journalists because their role is limited to ask questions. This situation is not problematic if their goal is to ask informative or critical questions, but it becomes problematic if journalists want to advance standpoints, arguments, or criticisms. In the latter case, journalists have to perform their argumentative moves through façade questions in order to comply with the protocol of press conferences. For this reason, it is not easy to distinguish the argumentative function of journalists’ questions, and consequently, their value for accountability. This paper draws on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation to give an argumentative account of political press conferences. Furthermore, the implications of journalists’ questions for accountability purposes are discussed.

The relevance of metaphor in argumentation. Uniting pragma-dialectics and deliberate metaphor theory

Argumentative discussions can contain various types of metaphor, but these do not all fulfil the same function in discourse: while some seem to express part of the argumentation, others seem to be irrelevant. So far, argumentation research has not explained when metaphors should be considered relevant for argumentation. In this paper, insights from deliberate metaphor theory are combined with the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Based on this framework, it can be explained that various forms of metaphor exist that have various communicative functions. Deliberate metaphors are metaphors intended to change the perspective of the interlocutor and thus may play a relevant role in a discussion. Non-deliberate metaphors have no such function. Using the concept of analytic relevance, the analyst can distinguish between relevant and irrelevant metaphors: If metaphors are used as a means to change someone's perspective on the issue at hand, they are relevant moves in light of the aim to solve a difference of opinion, whether they positively contribute to that aim or not.

“Doctor, I disagree”

Abstract In medical consultations, disagreements may arise. Yet, patients’ predisposition to engage in a discussion with their doctors to resolve these disagreements may vary. This study aims to develop and validate a measurement tool to assess patient argumentativeness (P-ARG) in general practice. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Infante and Rancer’s (1982) argumentativeness scale, scale items were developed and subsequently administered to 183 participants. Principal component analysis was conducted to explore the scale structure. Also, convergent and concurrent validity were assessed. The results confirmed a two-factor scale structure and provided preliminary support for its validity. While further refinement is required, the (preliminary) P-ARG scale can be used for research purposes by medical argumentation as well as health communication scholars, e.g., to explore the relationships between doctors’ provision of argumentation, patients’ perspectives thereof, and patient argumentativeness.

­A defense of analogy inference as sui generis

Accounts of analogical inference are usually categorized into four broad groups: abductive, deductive, inductive and sui generis. The purpose of this paper is to defend a sui generis model of analogical inference. It focuses on the sui generis account, as developed by Juthe [2005, 2009, 2015, 2016] and Botting’s [2017] criticism of it. This paper uses the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation as the methodological framework for analyzing and reconstructing argumentation. The paper has two main points. First, that Juthe’s arguments against a deductive interpretation of prima facie analogy argumentation remain unaffected by Botting’s criticism, which means that many of the reasons against deductive reformulation of analogy argumentation still stand. The additional argument, which Botting himself brings up, that a deductive interpretation cannot account for the cumulative effect of analogies, just provides further reason to reject deductivism. The second main point of this paper is that an inductive interpretation of analogical inference also fails. There are constitutional differences between inductive and analogical inference that cannot be bridged. The result is a firm defense of the sui generis view of analogical inference.

Figurative analogies and how they are resisted in British Public Bill Committee debates

Abstract This paper studies metaphor use in British Public Bill Committee debates. It focuses on the way in which legislators frame their arguments in metaphorical terms under the form of figurative analogies. Because these figurative analogies can be misleading by oversimplifying the issue under discussion, resisting them by putting forward counter-argumentation is a crucial and necessary skill. The purpose of this paper is to explore the phenomenon of countering figurative analogies in legislative debates, and to show that resistance to figurative analogies is a complex phenomenon comprising various types of criticisms to different types of metaphor. To this end, we present qualitative analyses of a number of case studies of resistance to figurative analogies found in the British Public Bill Committee debates on the Education Bill 2010–11 by employing the three-dimensional model of metaphor (Steen, 2011) and the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation (Van Eemeren, 2010).

Een pragma-dialectische reconstructie van de discussiebijdragen van arts en patiënt in ‘shared decision-making’

Abstract A pragma-dialectical reconstruction of contributions to the discussion by both doctor and patient in ‘shared decision-making’Medical consultation nowadays generally proceeds in accordance with the process of shared decision-making (SDM). In the literature on medical communication, the general characteristics of this process seem to be agreed upon. With respect to the specific division of labour between doctor and patient, however, different alternatives are suggested. In this paper we approach the process of SDM from the perspective of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. We translate the contributions of doctor and patient to this process in terms of the ideal model of a critical discussion, taking into account both the general characteristics and the different alternatives for the division of labour proposed in the literature. The resulting analytical tool enables a more precise analysis of the process of SDM and creates a starting point for a well-founded evaluation of the contributions of doctor and patient to this process.

QUANDO AS CRIANÇAS ARGUMENTAM: A CONSTRUÇÃO DISCURSIVA DO USO DE EVIDÊNCIAS EM AULAS INVESTIGATIVAS DE CIÊNCIAS

O objetivo do presente estudo é analisar a construção discursiva de práticas de uso de evidências durante argumentação em aulas de ciências em uma turma do 3° ano do Ensino Fundamental. Selecionamos um evento considerado telling case para análise de interações face a face. Buscamos nos apropriar de elementos da perspectiva etnográfica em educação e pressupostos da Teoria Pragma-dialética da Argumentação para desenvolver as análises. Nossos resultados indicam que a argumentação do grupo foi organizada em torno de dois focos; o primeiro, gerado por discordâncias relacionadas a questões mais diretivas, demandavam a apresentação de pontos de vista e argumentos/evidências; o segundo, gerado por discordâncias relacionadas a questões de teor metacognitivo, originou discussões em torno do uso de evidências. Além disso, indicamos a complexidade do processo de relacionar evidências a uma determinada conclusão, explorando uma interação na qual pontos de vista contrários foram sustentados pelas mesmas observações. Dialogamos com outras pesquisas em argumentação no contexto dos Anos Iniciais do Ensino Fundamental e sugerimos implicações para a prática pedagógica e para pesquisa em Educação em Ciências.

Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports

Abstract In the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is approached in this study as a particular communicative activity type, which can be reconstructed as part of a critical discussion. CSR reports excerpts are viewed in the analysis as parts of a virtual critical discussion in which a company acts as a protagonist maneuvering strategically to defend the standpoint according to which the business is operated ethically, and to convince the audience about what is mentioned in the standpoint. The reconstructed standpoint of a CSR report, We are doing business responsibly, may be regarded as stereotypical, since it corresponds to the institutional point of this regulated type of communicative activity. In the first part of the study, a brief overview is given of the CSR reporting activity, then the concept of strategic maneuvering is presented, under its three aspects (topical potential, audience demand, and presentational techniques), as well as the notion of communicative activity type, with a highlight on the role of the (macro-)context and of institutional preconditions in analytical studies on argumentation. The analysis in the latter part of the study concerns presentational techniques used by the protagonist in the confrontation and in the argumentation stages in CSR reporting, in order to reconcile rhetorical and dialectical aims by maneuvering strategically. The coordinatively and the subordinatively compound structure of argumentation, the symptomatic argument scheme, as well as reformulations of the standpoint, use of emotionally endowed words, concentration of the arguments in the form of nominal sentences acting as headings are among the most important presentational devices constitutive of argumentative moves aimed at convincing the audience that the company acts ethically, but also at promoting a positive image of its business responsibility, which appears to be the ground for winning the discussion.

\u201cYou Think That Says a Lot, but Really it Says Nothing\u201d: An Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression Functioning as a Presentational Device

This paper discusses idiomatic expressions like ‘that says it all’, ‘that says a lot’ etc. when used in presenting an argument. These expressions are instantiations of the grammatical pattern that says Q, in which Q is an indefinite quantifying expression. By making use of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and the linguistic theory of construction grammar it is argued that instantiations of that says Q expressing positive polarity (‘it all’, ‘everything’, ‘much’, ‘a lot’, ‘something’) can fulfil the role of an argumentation’s (explicitly expressed) linking premise. Furthermore, an analysis of these expressions as presentational devices shows that an arguer can use them for strategic reasons, i.e. to leave the exact formulation of the standpoint implicit and to present the argument as self-evident. Using these devices derails into fallaciousness when the context offers insufficient clues to reconstruct the standpoint or when the argument does not offer the kind of support that would be required by the specific instantiation of Q. The argumentative function of instantiations of that says Q expressing negative polarity (‘little’, ‘nothing’ and other denials of those expressing positive polarity) is that an antagonist can use them to attack the justificatory power of the protagonist’s argument.

A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies

The study of fallacies is at the heart of argumentation studies. In response to Hamblin’s devastating critique of the state of the theory of fallacies in 1970, both formal dialectical and informal approaches to fallacies developed. In the current paper, we focus on an influential informal approach to fallacies, part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Central to the pragma-dialectical method for analysing and evaluating argumentative discourse is the ideal model of a critical discussion. In this discussion model, a dialectical perspective on argumentation is combined with a pragmatic take on communicative interaction. By formalising and computationally implementing the model of a critical discussion, we take a first step in the development of software to computationally model argumentative dialogue in which fallacies are prohibited along the pragmadialectical norms. We do this by defining the Critical Discussion Game, a formal dialogue game based on the pragma-dialectical discussion model, executable on an online user-interface which is part of a larger infrastructure of argumentation software.

From reasonable preferences, via argumentation, to logic

This article demonstrates that typical restrictions which are imposed in dialogical logic in order to recover first-order logical consequence from a fragment of natural language argumentation are also forthcoming from preference profiles of boundedly rational players, provided that these players instantiate a specific player type and compute partial strategies. We present two structural rules, which are formulated similarly to closure rules for tableaux proofs that restrict players' strategies to a mapping between games in extensive forms (i.e., game trees) and proof trees. Both rules are motivated from players' preferences and limitations; they can therefore be viewed as being player-self-imposable. First-order logical consequence is thus shown to result from playing a specific type of argumentation game. The alignment of such games with the normative model of the Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is positively evaluated. But explicit rules to guarantee that the argumentation game instantiates first-order logical consequence have now become gratuitous, since their normative content arises directly from players' preferences and limitations. A similar naturalization for non-classical logics is discussed.

Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion

In this paper a dialogue game for critical discussion is developed. The dialogue game is a formalisation of the ideal discussion model that is central to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The formalisation is intended as a preparatory step to facilitate the development of computational tools to support the pragma-dialectical study of argumentation. An important dimension of the pragma-dialectical discussion model is the role played by speech acts. The central issue addressed in this paper is how the speech act perspective can be accommodated in the formalisation as a dialogue game. The starting point is an existing ‘basic’ dialogue game for critical discussion, in which speech acts are not addressed. The speech act perspective is introduced into the dialogue game by changing the rules that govern the moves that can be made and the commitments that these result in, while the rules for the beginning, for the end, and for the structure of the dialogue game remain unchanged. The revision of the move rules is based on the distribution of speech acts in the pragma-dialectical discussion model. The revision of the commitment rules is based on the felicity conditions that are associated with those speech acts.

Harald R. Wohlrapp: The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation. Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning 4

In this work, the fruit of some 30 years of research in the Hamburg argumentation group, the author proposes a new philosophical foundation for the study of argumentation. His theory can be briefly characterized as ‘‘pragmatic-dialectical’’, since it is shaped by a Peircean pragmatism and a quasi-Hegelian dialectic. It is both more pragmatic and more dialectical than the Amsterdam pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Readers are likely to find the book difficult to follow, because of its many new concepts and new definitions of old concepts. The present reviewer found it useful to write a close summary of the entire book, amounting to 84 single-spaced pages, and to have the author check it for accuracy. The summary is available from the present reviewer on request. It hardly needs to be said that, despite its difficulty, the book deserves to be read carefully by anyone with a serious research interest in argumentation. It is not every day that a new philosophical basis for the study of argumentation is proposed. The present review has been written with the main goal of helping the prospective reader to understand and appreciate the book more easily while working through it.

Review of Ihnen Jory (2012): Pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. Instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation at the Second Reading of the British Parliament

Having accurate information about the arguments presented for and against a legislative proposal in law-making debates is a precondition for civil society to exercise any influence on the work of parliament while a law is being passed. Among the arguments brought forward in these debates, pragmatic argumentation - argumentation for or against a proposed course of action based on its desirable or undesirable consequences - plays a central role. With a view to contributing to the public accessibility of parliament’s legislative work, this book proposes instruments specifically adapted for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates. The instruments are designed for law-making debates as institutionalised in the first substantial stage of the British law-making process, second reading. Premised on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, the author first develops instruments for the analysis and evaluation of pragmatic argumentation based on an analysis of the general properties and basic normative standards relevant to pragmatic argumentation. These general instruments are subsequently contextualised by taking into consideration the institutional constraints regulating the use of pragmatic argumentation in the communicative activity of second reading debates. The pragmatic argumentation used by the Labour government in the second reading debate of the Terrorism Bill (2005-06) is analysed and evaluated to illustrate how the instruments proposed can be applied in practice.

Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation

Abstract :In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.