Ursula Christmann

“That's not fair!” argumentational integrity as an ethics of argumentative communication

The article introduces the concept of ‘argumentational integrity’ as the basis for developing ethical criteria by which contributions to argumentative discussions can be evaluated; the focus is on the derivation, definition, and specification of the concept. The derivation of the concept starts out from a prescriptive use of ‘argumentation’, entailing in particular the goal of a rational as well as a cooperative solution. In order to make this goal attainable, contributions to argumentative discussions must meet certain conditions. It is assumed that participants are not only intuitively aware of these conditions, but in fact expect of themselves and others that they will not consciously violate the conditions. This assumption leads to the most general definition of the norm of argumentational integrity: Speakers must not knowingly violate the argumentative conditions. On the basis of an empirical study drawing upon classifications of unethical strategies in popular rhetorical texts, the general norm is then specified in the form of 11 ‘standards of fair argumentation’.

Strategische Verarbeitung beim Lernen mit Text und Hypertext

Zusammenfassung: Beim Lernen mit Hypertext mussen Lernende ihren Lernweg selbststandig zusammenstellen und auf verschiedene Knoten verteilte Lerninhalte zu einer koharenten Gegenstandsreprasentation integrieren. Diese Anforderungen sollten durch den Einsatz kognitiver und metakognitiver Lernstrategien besser bewaltigt werden konnen. In diesem Beitrag werden Ergebnisse aus einer experimentell-korrelativen Untersuchung zur Rolle von Lernstrategien beim Lernen mit linearem Text und Hypertext berichtet. Psychologiestudierenden (N = 30) wurden studiumsnahe Lernaufgaben gestellt, die anhand eines Hypertexts oder eines inhaltsgleichen Lineartexts zu bearbeiten waren. Lernerfolgsmase wurden uber eine Inhaltsanalyse von Lernskripten ermittelt. Der Strategieneinsatz wahrend der Textrezeption wurde uber Protokolle lauten Denkens erfasst. Zusatzlich wurde das Navigationsverhalten in Logfiles aufgezeichnet. Der Einsatz kognitiver Lernstrategien erwies sich unabhangig von der Textstrukturvariante als lernforderlich. Zu...

Components of the Evaluation of Integrity Violations in Argumentative Discussions: Relevant Factors and their Relationships

The effects of six components relevant in the evaluation of integrity violations were tested within a completely crossed six-factor design. The following components were included in the analysis: severity of an argumentative rule violation (high vs. low), degree of subjective awareness in committing a rule violation (intentional, by negligence, unknowingly), presence versus absence of excuses and corrections, frequent versus infrequent rule violations, far-reaching positive versus far-reaching negative intentions, and high versus low subject matter and argumentative competence of the speaker. The data were analyzed by using a logistic regression approach and by the configuration-frequency analysis. All hypotheses were largely confirmed (N = 317): Severe rule violations, negative far-reaching intentions of the speaker, high argumentative competence and subject matter knowledge of the speaker, no corrections and excuses by the speaker, and frequent rule violations lead with significant frequency to an unfairness verdict. Among all variables included in the analysis, severity of a rule violation proved to be the most powerful. In addition, specific predictor combinations, which lead to an unfairness verdict or a neutral evaluation with significant frequency, were identified.

Voice Modulations in German Ironic Speech.

Previous research has shown that in different languages ironic speech is acoustically modulated compared to literal speech, and these modulations are assumed to aid the listener in the comprehension process by acting as cues that mark utterances as ironic. The present study was conducted to identify paraverbal features of German ‘ironic criticism’ that may possibly act as irony cues by comparing acoustic measures of ironic and literal speech. For this purpose, samples of scripted ironic and literal target utterances produced by 14 female speakers were recorded and acoustically analyzed. Results showed that in contrast to literal remarks, ironic criticism was characterized by a decreased mean fundamental frequency (F0), raised energy levels and increased vowel duration, whereas F0-contours differed only marginally between both speech types. Furthermore, we found ironic speech to be characterized by vowel hyperarticulation, an acoustic feature which has so far not been considered as a possible irony cue. Contrary to our expectations, voice modulations in ironic speech were applied independently from the availability of additional, visual irony cues. The results are discussed in light of previous findings on acoustic features of irony yielded for other languages.

The Efficacy of Communicative Fairness and Rhetorical Aesthetics in Contributions to Argumentation.

This paper deals with the effects of aesthetic quality and argumentational integrity or fairness on the persuasiveness of contributions to argumentation. Contemporary discussions of aesthetics and morality distinguish three possible relationships: (a) superiority of aesthetics in making contributions persuasive, (b) integrity as a necessary precondition for the efficacy of aesthetics, and (c) a compensatory relationship between aesthetics and integrity. Basic argumentative dialogs were varied in aesthetic quality via the use of figurative language and in fairness via the additionof faulty, insincere, or unjustarguments. Materials were presented in a written (Study I) or spoken form (Study *II), and followed with questions exploringcognitive, emotional, and conativeaspects of persuasive efficacy. Results of both studies strongly support case (b): Only in arguments perceived as fair can persuasive impact be enhanced by aesthetic means.

War das Absicht? Indikatoren subjektiver Intentionalitätszustände bei der ethischen Bewertung von Argumentationsbeiträgen

The concept of argumentational integrity describes criteria for evaluating contributions to argumentative discussions from an ethical perspective. These criteria have been elaborated in the form of conditions for, characteristics, and standards of (un-)fair argumentation; keeping to these conditions has been defined as fair, to consciously violate them as unfair argumentation. This definition presupposes that an >unfairness verdict< necessarily comprises two components: (a) There must be a violation of an argumentative rule; (b) this violation must have been committed with some degree of awareness. Thus in evaluating an argumentative rule violation as unfair, one has to take into account the speaker’s subjective state of intentionality. In this paper we first discuss the theoretical distinction between an objective rule violation and the subjective awareness in analogy to the German criminal law; on this basis we then report a study where the hypothesis that both the severity of the objective rule violation and the subjective degree of intentionality play a part in unfairness evaluations could be empirically confirmed (1.). Next, we ask how intentionality might be inferred in everyday communication; we put forward a category system of potential cues to (or indicators of) intentionality which was derived on the basis of pragmalinguistic analyses of everyday argumentative interactions (2.). In the last part of the paper we present two empirical studies where we tested for some of these potential indicators whether they are in fact used to infer intentionality in evaluating argumentative discussions. The results show that the indicators have a differential effect on the attribution of intentionality, depending on the type of the indicator as well as on the severity of the argumentative rule violation (3.).

A German-language replication study analysing the role of figurative speech in reasoning

According to the metaphorical framing model, the use of metaphors in discussing an issue influences recipients’ understanding and assessment of that issue. In a recent study, participants read a text referring to a city’s crime problem either as a beast or a virus and then proposed counter-measures for that problem. Participants’ suggestions differed depending on the metaphor they had read. This replication matched the original procedure regarding the content of the rhetorical figures (beast vs virus), the topic under focus (crime) and the measurement of the dependent variable (open-end format to collect participants’ proposals). The procedure differed from the original with respect to language (German instead of English) and by including the formal type of rhetorical figure (metaphor or simile) as a factor. A systematic influence of the content of the figure on subjects’ proposals was observed. Presenting the rhetorical figure as a metaphor or a simile had no effect. Taken together, we were able to replicate the main effect of the original study. Metaphors do indeed frame reasoning.

Entwicklung und erste Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung der passiven argumentativ-rhetorischen Kompetenz

Zusammenfassung: Unter passiver argumentativ-rhetorischer Kompetenz verstehen wir die Fahigkeit zur Identifikation von argumentativen, rhetorischen, argumentationslogischen und interaktiven Auffall...

Konzeption und Evaluation eines Trainings zum Umgang mit unfairem Argumentieren in Organisationen

Zusammenfassung. In diesem Beitrag werden die Konzeption und Evaluation eines Trainings vorgestellt, das zu einer Verbesserung der Argumentationskultur - gerade auch in organisationalen Kontexten - beitragen soll. Die Trainingskonzeption baut praktisch vollstandig auf grundlagenwissenschaftlichen Befunden auf und verfolgt das Ziel, fur verschiedene Formen argumentativer Unintegritat zu sensibilisieren und situativ angemessene Reaktionsweisen zu vermitteln. Die modulartig aufgebaute Konzeption behandelt das Phanomen unintegren Argumentierens in sechs Trainingsdimensionen, deren zugrunde liegende theoretischen und empirischen Befunde kurz umrissen werden. Bei der didaktischen Umsetzung der Konzeption werden induktive vs. deduktive und entdeckende vs. rezeptive Lernformen unterschieden. Die Durchfuhrung des Trainings erfolgte mit 89 Personen (uberwiegend Mitarbeiter/innen von Verwaltungsinstitutionen). Im Rahmen eines Kontrollgruppendesigns sprechen die Ergebnisse der Produktevaluation fur die Wirksamkeit de...

Methoden der Verstehens- und Verständlichkeitserhebung

SummaryThe current contribution concentrates on an illustration of methods from the social sciences used for the description of text understanding and text comprehensibility. These methods differentiate between basic and applied research. Since basic research is primarily interested in the measurement of processes of understanding, the current article puts its emphasis on applied research for which the products of understanding are more relevant. Based on the complexity of each method the three following procedures are distinguished: (1) Evaluation and Estimation (semantic differential and rating of comprehensibility), (2) Collection of comprehension products in close relation to the text (subjective measurement of information, cloze procedure, sentence completion, verification of text statements, recognition of text parts, multiple choice task), and (3) collection of comprehension products less closely related to the text (answering questions about the text, summary, structural repetition, free repetition, diagnosis of the knowledge structure, acting out).