Table Of ContentChristian Plantin Editor
Argumentation
Through
Languages and
Cultures
Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures
Christian Plantin
Editor
Argumentation Through
Languages and Cultures
Previously published in Argumentation “Special Issue:
Argumentation through languages and cultures”
Volume 35, Issue 1, 2021
Editor
Christian Plantin
Research Group ICAR Interactions
Lyon, France
Spinoff from journal: “Argumentation” Volume 35, issue 1, March 2021
ISBN 978-3-031-19320-0
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2022
Chapters “Annotating Argument Schemes” and “The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory” are
licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creative-
commons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). For further details see license information in the chapters.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors
or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims
in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents
Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures.............................................. 1
C.Plantin: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:1-7 (28, August 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09529-9
Political Argumentation by Reciting Poems in the Spring
and Autumn Period of Ancient China .................................................................. 9
S. Ju, Z. Chen, and Y. He: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:9-33 (25, June 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09527-x
Jain Philosophers in the Debating Hall of Classical India ................................ 35
M. -H. Gorisse: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:35-49 (26, July 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09532-0
Attack, Defense and Counter-Attack in the Inuit Duel Songs
of Ammassalik ....................................................................................................... 51
C. Plantin: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:51-72 (29, August 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09528-w
Arsyad Al-Banjari’s Dialectical Model for Integrating
Indonesian Traditional Uses into Islamic Law ................................................... 73
M. Iqbal and S. Rahman: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:73-99 (27, July 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09526-y
Annotating Argument Schemes ......................................................................... 101
J. Visser, J. Lawrence, C. Reed, J. Wagemans, and D. Walton: Argumentation
2020, 2021: 35:101-139 (7, May 2020) DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09519-x
Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements:
Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory ....................................... 141
F. Macagno and R. Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto: Argumentation 2020, 2021:
35:141-176 (15, June 2020) DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09525-z
The Study of Metaphor in Argumentation Theory ......................................... 177
L. van Poppel: Argumentation 2020, 2021: 35:177-208 (20, June 2020)
DOI: 10.1007/s10503-020-09523-1
vv
Argumentation (2021) 35:1–7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09529-9
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures
Christian Plantin1
Published online: 28 August 2020
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
Abstract
The four contributions in this special issue on Argumentation Through Languages
and Cultures deals with clear cases of such argumentative situations as they develop
in different cultures and language groups. One of these papers comes from the
Inuit oral culture; three papers from written cultures, Chinese, Muslim and Indian
cultures. Among written cultures, the Indian and Muslim cultures have developed
sophisticated theories of argument, while the Chinese culture, according to Graham
(Disputers of the Tao—Philosophical argument in Ancient China, Open Court, Chi-
cago, 1989, p. 169), combined “a sense of rigorous proof with the indifference to
logical forms”.
Keywords Argument · Languages · Culture · Argument in Muslim culture ·
Argument in ancient Chinese culture · Philosophical debates in India · Argument in
oral cultures · Ammassalik oral culture
Many years ago, the community of argumentation studies circulated a question
from a student, asking if anybody knew of some alternative to Toulmin’s layout
of argument. Somebody suggested, without giving more details, that the Chinese
might have practiced and elaborated such a non-Toulminian concept of argument
(I couldn’t retrieve the original correspondence). The question may suggest that the
student was just fed up with the basics of their argumentation course. In a more chal-
lenging way, it can be considered as a significant interrogation about universals in
argumentation theory, and universals can be boring to some audiences, as elemen-
tary logic teachers know very well.
Anyway, Toulmin’s “layout of argument” is certainly not the arch-villain
of the party; it does the job it is supposed to do. As Ehninger and Brockriede
(1983) made clear, if Warrant and Backing are seen as the key components of
an underlying topos, their combination can be taken as expressing the essence
Chapter 1 was originally published as Plantin, C. Argumentation (2021) 35:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10503-020-09529-9.
*
Christian Plantin
[email protected]
1 Research Group ICAR Interactions, Corpora, Learning, Representations, CNRS - ENS de Lyon,
Lyon, France
Reprinted from the journal Vol.:(012134 536789)
2 C. Plantin
of an argument scheme, the defining concept the Data-Claim argumentative rela-
tion. Moreover, it adequately represents a key domain of Western argumentative
practices, default reasoning. It defines the conditions under which a claim can
be taken as a working hypothesis to be submitted to the criticism of a challeng-
ing voice, obstinately looking for the refutability conditions of the argued claim.
These are of course abstract considerations; the rise in abstraction is regularly
paid for by a weakened capacity to account for the riches of lexical-seman-
tic expression and inter-subjective relations at play in a specific argumentative
encounter.
The issue of the universal applicability of Western models can be approached as
an empirical question. If argumentation is defined in relation with logic, one has to
consider that, as an axiomatic mathematical discipline, logic is universal, meaning
that its conclusions must be considered as well established all around the world(s).
The situation becomes more complicated when argumentation is defined as a set of
applied, natural, contextual, substantial, informal… practices. Beyond the material
context relevant to the argument itself and to the actual act of arguing, these desig-
nations points to the idea that, as an ordinary language practice, argumentation basi-
cally involves linguistic subjectivity (Benveniste 1971). Toulmin layout deals very
well with epistemic subjectivity, not so clearly with the socio-psychological subjec-
tivity of feeling, tastes and interests. A second tier of complexity is added by the fact
that everyday argumentation is actually an inter-subjective activity, that is, both a
truth-establishing game and a truth-telling game. Not only “P is true” but also “truly
I tell you that P”; “truthful” is a quality attached to a statement or to a person. A
trustworthy person and a trustworthy statement deserve the same kind of confidence.
The relevance of everyday arguments floats in-between the speakers and their utter-
ances. In any case Western theories of argument have certainly not exhausted their
capacities to account for and illuminate their traditional data fields, and these evolv-
ing data fields go on bringing in new theoretical challenges.
This is certainly no reason not to pay attention to non-Western theories and prac-
tices of argument, and we have excellent instruments for this. For example, Khallâf’s
book on the Foundations of Muslim Law (1942) can be put on a par with Perelman
and Olbrechts-Tyteca Treatise on argumentation (1958). Graham’s book Disput-
ers of the Tao—Philosophical argument in Ancient China (1989) builds a bridge
between Chinese and Western traditions, and could also be considered as the refer-
ence book for argumentation studies. It indeed provides two keys to a better mutual
understanding. First, he claims that, from the Later Mohists onwards (Mozi, c. 470
BC–c. 391 BC), “the sense of rigorous proof” coexists with “an indifference to logi-
cal forms” (id., p. 169). Second, he sketches out a Confucian alternative to argument
as a dispute between antagonistic (“argumentative”) parties holding different per-
spectives, “choice in general does not necessarily imply even the posing of alterna-
tives. It might be the contemplation of one’s situation and the example of sages in
the same situation, until inclination spontaneously settles in a certain direction” (id.
p. 27). This suggests that the field of argumentation studies can dispense with the
crossroad metaphor (id.), and should reconsider the balance metaphor, “to apply the
metaphor of weighing which Confucius does not use, the agent is not the weigher
but the arm of the balance itself” (id., p. 28).
1 3 Reprinted from the journal
Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures 3
However, rejecting Toulmin’s model is not enough to define a research program
or a teaching program on argumentation. The quest for new horizons can be posi-
tively understood as a plea to better take into account practices, models and debates
as they function in non-Western cultures, to practice a collaborative inter-linguistic
and inter-cultural investigation, and especially see what happens when the result-
ing analysis and data are appropriately reported to the members of the communities
interested in that kind of dialogue. It all starts with a renewed attention to data.
To what extent can the Western concept of argument be considered as a local
(vs. universal) concept? As everybody knows, the English word argument is highly
ambiguous, an argument1 is a “good reason”, an argument2 is a “dispute”, an
argument3 is a “topic”, not to mention argument4 referring to a mathematical “vari-
able”. The adjective argumentative points to a quarrelsome personality or bellicose
utterances (meaning 1. in Merriam-Webster), rather than a linguistic segment ori-
ented towards a conclusion. Fortunately, the pair argument, argumentation is not
ambiguous; that is, disputatiousness can be considered as an accidental feature of
argumentation.
To address the issue of argumentation through languages and cultures, one has
to rely upon some concept of argument applicable if not to all, then at least to sev-
eral, linguistic and cultural groups. As a working anthropological hypothesis, we
will admit first that all human social groups experience situations of contradic-
tions involving inter-individual differences, preferences and interests. Humans have
devised countless procedures and tricks to deal with such crisis situations in their
best interest. Humans being speaking animals, they can’t help talking during these
activities or lack of activities. Contradictions are elaborated, solved or amplified
through a series of technique: physically eliminating the other party; silencing them;
talking over the issue until the participants get fed up with it and give up the floor;
trusting God, or the ordinary course of events to save the day; a twentieth century
politician once said “in the long run, there is no problem that a lack of a solution
will not eventually solve”. Dense verbal argumentations emerge in such argumenta-
tive situations as sustained elaborated multisemiotic (verbal, symbolic) exchanges
between the parties. This procedure gives free rein to unique human capacities
such as ruse and reason, developing in everyday human interactions and ritualized
assemblies.
This point of departure is typically anchored in the Western tradition of argumen-
tation. And, as such, it could be objected to on the basis of the Confucian perspec-
tive alluded to supra, according to which argumentation has more to do with the
sustained contemplation of the worlds of the possible and the desirable until a way
out clearly emerges. It should be noted that, in classical argumentative situations,
third parties’ specific task is to contemplate a panel of possibilities in order to reach
a matured conclusion (Planting 2018, Roles).
The four contributions. in this special issue on Argumentation Through Lan-
guages and Cultures deals with clear cases of such argumentative situations as
they develop in different cultures and language groups. One of these papers comes
from the Inuit oral culture; three papers from written cultures, Chinese, Muslim and
Indian cultures. Among written cultures, the Indian and Muslim cultures have devel-
oped sophisticated theories of argument, while the Chinese culture, according to
Reprinted from the journal 1 3
4 C. Plantin
Graham, combined “a sense of rigorous proof with the indifference to logical forms”
(1989, p. 169).
Shi-er Jug, Zhi-xi Chen, Yang He, Political Argumentation by Reciting Poems in
the Spring and Autumn period of ancient China.
SJ, ZC & YE contribution first calls for a development of argumentation studies
making greater allowance for the specificities of argument as developed “non-main-
stream cultures”.1 They illustrate their vision by the fascinating case of a delicate
political argument: Two rulers (W1 and W2) plead the cause of one of their allies,
(Duke Heen of Wei) who was taken hostage by the leader J of their alliance Duke
Ping of Ts’in. The argument consists in an exchange where the participants W1 and
W2 on the one side, J on the other side, take turn “reciting poems”, drawn from a
common reference, the Book of poetry, a Chinese Classic.
The exchange takes place at the court of J, and consists in “three rounds”.
• Round 1: Welcome poem from J; W1 and W2 reciprocate by reciting one poem
each.
• Round 2 is a kind of interlude, where the issue is openly but “privately” dis-
cussed through a chain of high-ranking dignitaries attached to W1 and to J.
• In round 3, W1 then W2 each recite a poem to J.
• Practical conclusion of the argument: “After this Duke Ping granted the return of
Duke Heen to Wei”.
The analysis of the argument is made in terms of “context comprehension rule”,
“function rule” and “expression rule”. For example, in round 2 (open discussion
between dignitaries), a dignitary attached to J reports to J the complaint reported
to him by a dignitary attached to W1; and J justifies the imprisonment Duke Hon
of Wei. The three rules attached to the sentence ⑥□ “Duke Ping explained to him
the offence of Duke Heen of Wei, and made Shuh-heang inform the two princes of
it” are: “(1) Context comprehension rule of ⑥: ‘based on the purpose of requesting,
when a verbal questioning is put forth by one party, the other party could understand
the questioning as asking for the acceptance of the request’; (2) Function rule: ‘in
the context that the leader is questioned by an overt expression, the leader chooses to
defend’; (3) Expression rule: in the context that the leader is questioned by an overt
expression, an overt explanation of reasons can be used”.
The analysis pays close attention to the specificities of the history, social organi-
zation, values and norms as enacted in the organization of their argumentative
exchanges. It follows that practical rationality and efficiency are not seen as a pos-
tulate of argumentation studies, but as resulting from a unique combination of such
components.
Marie-Hélène Gorisse, Jain philosophers in the debating hall of classical India.
In Fallacies (1970), Hamblin devotes a chapter to the “Indian tradition of stud-
ies on fallacies”, mentioning the contribution of the Jain philosopher Siddhasena
to epistemological studies (1970, p. 188). Marie-Hélène Gorisse (MHG) paper on
1 In these presentations, quotations come from the papers considered.
1 3 Reprinted from the journal
Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures 5
“Jain philosophers in the debating hall of classical India” focuses on Jain’s philoso-
phers purely logical contribution to the debate about “the form a convincing reason-
ing should have”, that is on “‘inference for others’ (parārthānumāna), in opposition
to the ‘inference for oneself’ (svārthānumāna)”. MHG recalls first that the debating
hall was not only a place where the triumph of the strongest argument was guaran-
teed, but also a privileged place for the exercise of magical powers, and linguistic
skills (“puzzle-arguments”); winning the debate was not only a way to secure the
triumph of a doctrine, but also to win riches and obtain a dominant a social figure.
MHG presents an overview of the forms of convincing reasoning as found “in
the Śvetāmbara canonical and post-canonical corpus” (the Śvetāmbara being one of
the two main branches of Jainism). Jain philosophers criticize the classical descrip-
tion of inference as a five-steps development (“Thesis, Evidence Account-Example,
Application, Conclusion”, according to the traditional English translation), and
argue that “the evidence” (that is the Reason) “is the central cog of the inference”,
and reject the necessity to give an Account-Example, that is “to show that there is at
least one case other than the case under consideration in which the evidence-prop-
erty occurs when the target-property also occurs”; the example is necessary only as
a convincing operator.
Jain philosophers also claim that, from a logical point of view, the inference pro-
cess can be fully accounted for in terms of “the necessary concomitance between
the target property and the evidence property”, the presence of the target property
is recognized as “impossible otherwise than in the presence of the target property”
(it rains (evidence property, argument), is necessarily concomitant with the road is
wet (target property, conclusion)). This vision of inference being developed into a
specific Jain ontological theory of “particular in universal”: “in the same situation in
which one grasps a particular Sissoo tree, one can also grasp the common properties
shared by all Sissoos”.
Then MHG shows “how these theoretical considerations were implemented
in actual debates”, by taking the example of the discussion about the concept of
product as used in the discussion about the existence of a conscious producer of the
world, that is, in the argument of intelligent design.
Plantin and Nicole Tersis (CP and NT), Attack, defense and counter-attack in the
Inuit duel songs of Ammassalik.
The Ammassalik community lives in the Ammassalik district situated in South-
eastern Greenland, slightly south of the polar circle. The traditional Ammassalik
culture was an oral culture, now disappeared. In the traditional Inuit society, sing-
ing was part of daily life. The anthropologists Paul-Émile Victor & Joelle Robert-
Lamblin published a collection of 720 songs, duel songs constituting the largest part
of the collection.
The duel is a moment in the development of a quarrel, originating in a conflictual
event; one of the partners holds a lingering grudge against the other, and challenges
him to a song duel, in the hope to take a public revenge upon him. The duel is a pub-
lic performance, an argumentative genre, where singing combines with head butting
and drum beating; the acclamations of the public designate the winner. The quarrel
can be cooled down or not by the performance.
Reprinted from the journal 1 3
