R. Grootendorst

Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation

Contents: Preface. Introduction. Part I: Analysis. Differences of Opinion. Argumentation and Discussion. Standpoints and Argumentation. Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises. The Structure of Argumentation. Part II: Evaluation. The Soundness of Argumentation. Fallacies (1). Fallacies (2). Part III: Presentation. Written Argumentation. Oral Argumentation.

Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem.

This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in which the concept of relevance is differentiated along three co-ordinate dimensions: object, domain and aspect. With the help of this taxonomy, it can be shown that the problems of evaluative relevance with which the standard approach to fallacies cannot satisfactory deal can be more systematically approached within a pragma-dialectical framework. This is demonstrated for the argumentum and hominem, which is erroneously treated as a homogenous type of relevance fallacy in logico-centric analyses, so that cases where this is not justified must be treated as ad hoc exceptions.

The speech acts of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions.

In discussions directed towards solving a conflict of opinion the participants try to convince one another of the acceptability or unacceptability of the opinion that is under discussion. If the participants are co-operative, this means that they are prepared to externalize their position with regard to the opinion and to advance argumentation for or against it. In this article, which is a condensed translation of an article originally published in Dutch (van Eemeren and Grootendorst in Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 2:271–310, 1980), the authors try to indicate, by reference to the speech act theory, what this entails. In the way in which it was originally conceived, the speech act theory is inadequate to characterize argumentation. In the authors’ view this objection can be met by regarding argumentation as an illocutionary act complex at a textual level. They formulate the conditions obtaining for a happy performance of this act complex and explain that for the speaker the performance is linked by convention to the perlocutionary act of convincing. In the case of an externalized discussion this means that with his argumentation the speaker tries to make the listener, in turn, perform an illocutionary act in which he expresses his acceptance of non-acceptance of the opinion.

Analyzing Argumentative Discourse

In this chapter, we explain some of the basics of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which was introduced in van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984). First, we make a comparison between dialectical analysis and rhetorical analysis, which is probably more familiar to most readers. Then, we sketch an ideal model of a critical discussion that can serve as a point of departure for dialectically analyzing argumentative discourse. In this model, we distinguish the various stages through which the resolution of a difference of opinion should pass and mention the types of speech acts that can play a constructive role in each of these stages. Finally, we show what kind of pragma-dialectical transformations are to be carried out in a reconstruction of argumentative discourse which starts from this ideal model and leads to an analytic overview of the aspects of the discourse that are crucial for its evaluation.

Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues

In this article it is pointed out what kind of rules for communication and argumentation are required in order to make it possible to resolve disputes in an orderly way. In section 2, Gricean maxims and Searlean speech act conditions are integrated in such a way that five general rules for communication can be formulated. In section 3, starting from Lewiss definition of convention, it is argued that the interactional effect of accepting is conventionally linked with the complex communicative act complex of argumentation. In section 4, the rules for argumentation are placed in a dialogical perspective.

A Pragma-dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion

According to the pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness, in case of a difference of opinion the protagonist and the antagonist of a standpoint should attempt to find out by means of a critical discussion whether the protagonists standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonists criticism. In this paper, the authors formulate the latest version of their basic rules for the performance of speech acts in the various stages that can beanalytically distinguished in a critical discussion that can lead to the resolution of a single and non-mixed difference opinion.

Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse

According to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, for analysing argumentative discourse, a normative reconstruction is required which encompasses four kinds of transformations. It is explained in this paper how speech act conditions can play a part in carrying out such a reconstruction. It is argued that integrating Searlean insights concerning speech acts with Gricean insights concerning conversational maxims can provide us with the necessary tools. For this, the standard theory of speech acts has to be amended in several respects and the conversational maxims have to be translated into speech act conditions. Making use of the rules for communication thus arrived at, and starting from the distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion as specified in the pragma-dialectical model, it is then demonstrated how indirect speech acts are to be transformed when reconstructing argumentative discourse.

The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century.

In this paper, we present an historical and systematic overview of the study of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. We discuss the main pre-Hamblin approaches (Locke, Whately, Schopenhauer, Perelman, Johnstone), the Standard Treatment (Hamblin, Copi, Rescher, Kahane), and recent post-Hamblin developments (formal dialectics, pragma-dialectics, Woods and Walton).

From analysis to presentation: A pragma-dialectical approach to writing argumentative texts

In this chapter, we outline a theoretical framework for developing strategies for writing argumentative texts. In much of the literature on writing more is said about the preconditions for writing and the principles for pedagogy than about the ways in which writing problems can be solved. Authors who do pay attention to writing problems usually do so in an unmethodical way, and their recommendations are based on common sense rather than theoretical considerations. We attempt to offer an alternative that is based on our pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The strategies we propose can be used by a writer in order to transform an analytic overview of the argumentation to be conveyed into a comprehensible and acceptable argumentative text. First is explained what one should imagine the various presentation transformations to be, then is shown, by way of concrete examples, exactly how the strategies involved are put into practice. Thus, it is made clear that the pragma-dialectical approach provides an opportunity to develop a methodical perspective which, so far, is lacking in the practical literature on writing.

Student Performance in Identifying Unexpressed Premisses and Argumentation Schemes

An adequate evaluation of argumentation starts from an analytic overview of the argumentative discourse. In such an overview, among other things, the unexpressed premisses and the relevant argumentation schemes are identified (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, 1992). The extent to which ordinary language users are capable of carrying out such identifications can only be answered by the use of empirical research. Here, we report about our empirical investigations on the performances of students in Dutch secondary education.