Argumentation Theory Research Articles

From Theory of Rhetoric to the Practice of Language Use: The Case of Appeals to Ethos Elements

In their book Commitment in Dialogue, Walton and Krabbe claim that formal dialogue systems for conversational argumentation are “not very realistic and not easy to apply”. This difficulty may make argumentation theory less well adapted to be employed to describe or analyse actual argumentation practice. On the other hand, the empirical study of real-life arguments may miss or ignore insights of more than the two millennia of the development of philosophy of language, rhetoric, and argumentation theory. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology for adapting such theories to serve as applicable tools in the study of argumentation phenomena. Our approach is both theoretically-informed and empirically-grounded in large-scale corpus analysis. The area of interest are appeals to ethos, the character of the speaker, building upon Aristotle’s rhetoric. Ethotic techniques are used to influence the hearers through the communication, where speakers might establish, but also emphasise, weaken or undermine their own or others’ credibility and trustworthiness. Specifically, we apply our method to Aristotelian theory of ethos elements which identifies practical wisdom, moral virtue and goodwill as components of speakers’ character, which can be supported or attacked. The challenges we identified in this case and the solutions we proposed allow us to formulate general guidelines of how to exploit rich theoretical frameworks to the analysis of the practice of language use.

Persuasive rather than ‘binding’ EU soft law? An argumentative perspective on the European Commission’s soft law instruments in times of crisis

ABSTRACT This paper starts from the premise that argumentation in EU (Commission) soft law instruments is essential for their effectiveness, mainly due to its function to persuade addressees as a means to enhance compliance. Notwithstanding their importance in the EU legal-political landscape, the problem is how to ensure that these instruments devoid of formal legally binding force can function as effective governance tools by convincing addressees to comply, particularly during crisis periods such as the Covid-19 crisis, when fast and effective action is urgently needed. By pointing at a number of significant legal problems and concerns deriving from the Commission’s ‘hardened’ soft law instruments, we suggest a normative approach focusing on the potential of EU soft law instruments to act as highly persuasive tools. By making the instruments’ argumentation a core concern, we examine its role as a means to improve the intrinsic quality of EU (Commission) soft law and to foster effective compliance. To this end, we propose a theoretical-analytical framework combining insights from law and argumentation theory, that puts forward an argumentative toolbox for the analysis and assessment of EU (Commission) soft law instruments. This toolbox comprises four argumentative parameters that need to be taken into account in the drafting and evaluation of EU (Commission) soft law instruments: (1) the content of the argumentation, (2) the design of the arguments pointing at persuasive suggestions for cooperation, (3) the factors influencing argumentative effectiveness, and (4) the soundness of argumentation.

ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ АРГУМЕНТАЦІЇ В ПРОЦЕСАХ ПРИЙНЯТТЯ РІШЕННЯ

Making a decision is the most important cognitive procedure that accompanies every human life and plays a significant role in the history of human culture as a whole. The entire history of mankind can, in a certain sense, be considered as the history of making certain decisions — right or wrong, rational or purely intuitive — that lead to the preservation of the existing state of affairs or to its change. However, the theory of decision-making arose and began to be developed only in the middle of the 20th century, and at first — as a theory of operations in the field of military technology. True, it was soon realized that it has a much wider application. So that at present it has turned into an interdisciplinary one that uses the methods of mathematics, psychology, sociology, political science, management and many other sciences, and is applied in various fields. Philosophical research aimed at elucidating the epistemological and logical foundations of the decision-making procedure is also being conducted in this field. The article emphasizes that a rational decision is based on a choice based not on intuition or previous experience, but on a rational analysis of the situation. Models of argumentation in decision-making are considered. The essence of logical, cognitive, and rhetorical approaches is clarified. The stages of the process of making a rational decision are explained. Conclusions. The most important difference between decision-making theory and argumentation theory is that decision-making is the basis of action/inaction in a given situation, whereas the process of argumentation is limited to substantiating a thesis/refutation of an antithesis.

ЩО ТАКЕ ЕМПІРИКАЛІЗАЦІЯ В ДОСЛІДЖЕННІ АРГУМЕНТАЦІЇ?

The following work will attempt to present to the reader the topic of Empiricalization in the recent treatment of Argumentation. An interesting trend that has emerged in the last decade or so concerns empirical turn in the study of argumentation. Empiricalization is the term that describes the attempts to underline the relationship between argumentation theory and argumentative reality by using different qualitative, quantitative, and mixed empirical methods. Currently, there are various empirical approaches in the field of argumentation. The author considers two of them, namely the historical-textual, and the meta-argumentation approaches. In addition to organizing what is already known about empiricalization, this paper also serves the function of suggesting what empirical research is needed to fill in theoretical gaps in the recent treatment of argumentation. In this regard, the purpose of this paper is to provide up-to-date, relevant, and informative discussion about an empirical component in argumentation research. Besides, in the paper, the author through the concept of Empiricalization approach to problems in Philosophy such as how to analyze and evaluate argumentation in philosophical texts.

Prawitz’s semantics and Walton’s argument schemes: a tentative reading and application of Kreisel’s informal rigour

We propose a reading of Kreisel’s informal rigour as a dialectic interplay between a formal and an intuitive level in the study of logically relevant notions. To substantiate our reading, we provide two case-studies: Prawitz semantics and Walton’s analysis of argument schemes. Prawitz’s semantics suggests an interaction between informal presuppositions, confirmed and refined by results about formal setups, and formal setups, which can be improved by suitably formalising informal presuppositions. In Walton’s Argumentation Theory, argument schemes are introduced to account for arguments that support their conclusion in a presumptive way. The possibility of developing such informal notion through the formal means provided by research in AI shows the importance of the interaction between these two levels in the analysis of defeasibility.

Le savoir-faire argumentatif dans l’enseignement et l’évaluation de la langue première aujourd’hui en France et en Espagne

The theories of argumentation identify three dimensions: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical. In this contribution, we expect to highlight the impact of these three dimensions on reference texts for teaching and assessing French and Spanish as first language. The analysis of first language curricula for secondary education demonstrates that the capacity The analysis of first language curricula for secondary education demonstrates that the capacity baccalaureate for university admission), reveal what dimension is being privileged in two countries linguistically and culturally similar, as France and Spain, but where the learning situation in secondary education and university is determined by a different educative culture.

On the Preconditions of Rationality

In the field of legal argumentation theory, rational justification is probably the most important part, and yet it is not fully understood by scholars even today. In several publication the author has presented already presented her theory on this, but has not discussed all the preconditions. In the present contribution this will be handed in – at least in a short version. Thus, aspects of epistemology and linguistic theory are discussed, as well as what the author calls the ‘LBA theorem’ (from ‘The Least Bad Alternative’), which relies on the law of noncontradiction and describes a criterion for when exactly an assertion is rationally justified.

Optimal policy modelling An argumentation theory approach to making sense of economic modelling

Optimal policy modelling An argumentation theory approach to making sense of economic modelling

Wenzeni uZuma: A jurisprudential study of the unlawfulness of corruption in Africa

In response to the multitude of corruption allegations levelled against him, former president Zuma and his supporters typically sing a song called ‘Wenzeni uZuma’ (‘What has Zuma done wrong?’). This paper takes up this question from a jurisprudential (theoretical) point of view; that is, by probing the various senses in which prima facie corrupt conduct can be said to be unlawful in Africa. This question is explored through the application of the conceptual machinery of argumentation theory and criminal law theory. This paper discusses the Feinbergian, positivistic, contractual, legal moralism and the argumentum ad ignorantiam senses in which prima facie corrupt conduct can be said to be unlawful. It is then argued that prima facie corrupt conduct should most appropriately be conceived of as being unlawful in the contractual sense that a designated official diverts a particular benefit away from a de jure beneficiary and towards a de faco beneficiary.

Optimal policy modelling An argumentation theory approach to making sense of economic modelling

Optimal policy modelling An argumentation theory approach to making sense of economic modelling

Аналіз та деконструкція основних ідеологем доктрини «Русский Мир»

The article analyses the three prominent ideologues of the doctrine of “Russian world”: the myth that “Orthodoxy is the basis of an identity”; the myth of the openness and friendly attitude of the Russian people to other ethnic groups and religions, and the myth of the Eurasian/Russian civilisation that opposes the “rotten” West. The existence of these ideologues in the information and symbolic field of Ukraine and the world, manipulating them, and placing them in the actual context of the Ukrainian cultural space, lead to a distorted perception of relations between Russia and Ukraine and the war between them. The article attempts to reveal those distortions and semantic substitutions ontologically contained in the ideologies of the “Russian world”, which can be analysed as typical errors in the context of the argumentation theory. The study aims to develop a conditional “dictionary” of mythologists of the “Russian world”, which could be used during an all-out information confrontation. The author chose the myth “Orthodoxy – the basis of Russian identity” as the basic ideology because, firstly, most other ideologies derive from this thesis with the help of skilful semantic manipulations. Secondly, this myth is interpreted and used by Russian ideologues in various contexts. Based on the analysis of this and two other myths, the author concludes that the ideology of the “Russian measure” does not meet the definition of the criteria of clarity and unambiguity; the meanings of its key concepts are as variable as possible, depending on the context, used with the substitution of meaning in general formulations, which do not provide for clarification of non-standard use of the term; there is a substitution of identities, which makes it possible to manipulate the historical facts and memory of the people; such informal logical errors as recourse to force, alternative to fear, false Scotsman, wholesale bargaining, and source poisoning are always used by Russian ideologues in their argumentative practices. In the process of revealing the illogicality and paradoxical nature of these myths, it turns out that the very essence of these myths significantly contributes to the crisis of culture and politics, which speaks of the same ideologues who glorify the messianic role of Russia. This array of ideological myths cannot be called a balanced system of political dogmas but rather a rhizomatic system of manipulation, the fluidity of which provides its ability to evade counter-arguments and identify historical substitutions.

Pragmatic Linguistics and Arabic Discours

This research deals with pragmatic linguistics in the light of the Arabic linguistic theory by addressing the emergence of this field, its concept and its cognitive dimensions, as well as its most important tools in the field of linguistic, rhetorical and discourse analysis, with reference to the points of convergence between it and the Arabic theory, where pragmatics is a field of knowledge in its own right. His references and principles, he studies the language depending on the contexts contained in it, as well as the situation of the interlocutors and the extent of their influence on each other through it, which is what the various Arab argumentative theories discuss

Peggio il rimedio del male? Argomenti e valori nelle controversie sulla vaccinazione contro il Covid-19

An interdisciplinary approach involving linguistics, rhetoric, and argumentation theory helps reveal how people argue their opinions and decisions. Although the pandemic is a common experience, its risks are perceived in different ways. For some, the real threat is Covid-19 and the remedy is vaccination. For others, however, the real risk is the vaccine and the “remedy” is refusal to get vaccinated. Justifying their opinions on the subject, Italian Internet users refer to common values (such as life, health, responsibility, etc.). However, since Internet users diagnose risks in different ways, they make use of shared values in differing ways. In this paper, the views of those for and against vaccination are analyzed from three complementary perspectives. The first one concerns the differences in which people conceive of various values. The second one shows how, using the same topoi, pro- and anti-vaccine advocates create different hierarchies of values that are fundamental to their respective decisions. Finally, the third one explores differences in the ways values are used in various argumentation schemes used in disputes on vaccination.

Argumentation as a Speech Act: A (Provisional) Balance

This paper investigates whether, and if so, in what way, argumentation can be profitably described in speech-act theoretical terms. I suggest that the two theories of argumentation that are supposed to provide the most elaborate analysis of it in speech-act theoretical terms (namely van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst’s Pragma-Dialectics and Lilian Bermejo-Luque’s linguistic normative model of argumentation) both suffer from the same two flaws: firstly, their “illocutionary act pluralism” assumption and secondly, a lack of interest in where arguing belongs in the classification of illocutionary acts. I argue that these flaws derive from the authors’ reliance on an intention-based speech-theoretical framework. Finally, I adopt a deontic framework for speech acts in order to propose an alternative way of accounting for argumentation which seems to overcome the two limitations outlined above. According to this framework, argumentation may be conceived as a speech act sequence, characterized by the conventional effects brought about by the communicative moves (as illocutionary acts) of which it is composed.

The Problem of Consent in Feminist Practical Ethics

The article analyzes the topical problem of consent in modern feminist theory as a way of achieving public consensus on the goals and forms of women?s emancipation. The emancipation of women is one of the most important achievements of modern society and an ongoing process. Therefore, the issues that are being discussed within the framework of feminist ethics are appropriate. For example, the extent to which men who hold power and dominance for thousands of years can genuinely liberate women and share with them equal rights and opportunities. There is also an acute problem of the extent to which women them- selves are willing to show solidarity and their consent on social and political issues. These issues and dis- cussions by contemporary feminists, who deserve the attention of a wide range of experts in applied ethics, argumentation theory, social and political theory, are addressed in this study.

Theoretical-Methodological Achievements of the Yerevan School for Argumentation

The Yerevan School for Argumentation (YSA) perhaps is the most brilliant manifestation of Armenian philosophical thought. Moreover, it is one of the remarkable results of the centuries-old Armenian philo- sophical culture that has gained world recognition. In the 18th (Brighton 1988; see: Brutian, G., 1988) and 19th (Moscow, 1993) World Congresses of Philosophy organized by the Federation of International Socie- ties for Philosophy, Academician Georg Brutian, the founder and head of the YSA, was entrusted with organizing and chairing Round tables on the discussion of the modern theory of argumentation organized within the framework of these conferences. Brutian?s fundamental publications served as the basis for the directions of the School. They put for- ward principles concerning the definition of argumentation, the structure of argumentation, the language of argumentation, the role of logic, and means of persuasion in the structure of argumentation, the rules of political argumentation, etc. The goal of the present work is to analyze and generalize the theoretical-methodological and conceptu- al results and approaches developed in the YSA, to examine their role in the system of modern philosophi- cal and logical theorems, as well as in the modern theories of argumentation, to present the frame of argu- mentation discourse and its methodological analysis developed in the School, to review the questions of the theory of meta-argumentation, to analyze the history and theoretical-methodological bases of for- mation and institutionalization of the YSA in the context of the developments of the world philosophical thought and the aspect of its contribution to world scientific thought, to suggest a general conception of scientific achievements of the School by a comparative analysis concerning other international centres.

Cartesianism, argumentation, values in the context of Chaïm Perelman’s «New Rhetoric»

The article deals with the process of founding and further development of the new rhetoric, a theory of argumentation developed by the Belgian philosopher Chaïm Perelman (1912-1984) and his co-worker Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1899-1987). The intellectual and philosophical backgrounds of the authors and some key characteristics of their theoretical approaches are described. The new rhetoric: (а) is primarily concerned with argument or practical reasoning, (b) suggests that figures of speech may be arguments instead of merely ornaments, (c) with its goal to influence minds, new rhetoric is a dynamic field of study, (d) it is complimentary rather than in opposition to formal reasoning. According to Perelman, the theory of argumentation conceived as a new rhetoric or dialectic, covers the whole range of discourse that aims at persuasion and conviction, whatever the audience addressed and whatever the subject matter. Perelman presents his new rhetoric as a much better form of logic than Cartesian deductive, stringent reasoning, at least where law and other values-based systems are concerned. Perelman challenged the unwholesome assumption that what we cannot know with mathematical certainly is necessarily arbitrary, irrational, and subjective. Perelman recognized "reasoned conviction" as a bridge to knowledge, although he was aware that it was a less perfect source of cognition than verified certainty. It is explained how the idea of developing the new rhetoric was born out of dissatisfaction with logical positivism or neopositivism (The Vienna Circle’s theories and ideas) and which classical and modern sources inspired the authors in developing a specific logic of value judgments that could deal with argumentation about actions, choices, decisions and without dismissing such argumentation as irrational. The rhetorical framework of the theory is expounded and an overview is provided of the key notions and concepts of Perelman’s ‘new rhetoric’ – the notions of adherence, audience (particular and universal audience), persuasion are explained. According to Perelman, the new rhetoric is based on the idea that since argumentation aims at securing the adherence of those to whom it is addressed, it is, in its entirety, relative to the audience to be influenced. Рerelman's position on the difference between formal logic and argumentation is analyzed.

Arguing for Argument’s Sake? Exploring Public Conversations around Climate Change on Twitter

Audience-facilitated information flow has become the new norm created by a public divergence from traditional media sources. Mobile device advancements and partnerships have changed how audiences view news media and the sources relied upon to obtain information. With these advancements, social media users have become primary information providers and information gatekeepers. Twitter specifically has become a news media platform for some based on its effectiveness in facilitating information flow and triggering reorganization as it provides a platform for collaboration and coordination. Despite widespread acceptance of the threat climate change poses by the scientific community, it is still a topic of contention on social media. Climate conversations are typically approached with an us versus them mindset with us being used as representation of the communities to which audiences belong. The communities one belongs to typically follows social media users social, political and environmental ideologies. Walton’s theory of argument or inference schemes served as the theoretical framework for this study. Argument schemes represent common arguments and special context arguments, in this case scientific argumentation. Walton’s argument from ignorance was used as a framework for the study. The argument states that if there has been a thorough search through the knowledge base then concrete proof of a fact would exist. The findings indicated social media may be a useful tool when exploring climate change conversations through a sociopolitical lens and additional research is needed to closely examine how political ideologies, global location, and different environmental topics impact issue awareness and beliefs.

Argumentation and Incivility in Online Forums: The Case of Discussing Colorism

Conversation argument theory is used to analyze seven online discussions of colorism, a form of skin tone prejudice. Discussants’ comments (N = 587) expressed ad hominem acts (17%), reasoning activities (59%) and delimitors (e.g., addressed objections, 37%). Unlike general forums confrontation-initiated forums had more ad hominem acts. Posts with compared to posts without ad hominem acts had fewer reasoning activities and delimitors. General colorism forums were the most civil and developed, findings that have implications for designing online forums.

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.