Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics

890 Pages·2015·9.69 MB·English

by  Frans H. van Eemeren (auth.)

Argumentation Library
Frans H. van Eemeren
Reasonableness
and Effectiveness
in Argumentative
Discourse
Fifty Contributions to the Development
of Pragma-Dialectics
Reasonableness and Effectiveness
in Argumentative Discourse
Argumentation Library
VOLUME 27
Series Editor
Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Editorial Board
Bart Garssen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
John Woods, University of British Columbia, Canada
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/5642
Frans H. van Eemeren
Reasonableness and
Effectiveness
in Argumentative Discourse
Fifty Contributions to the Development
of Pragma-Dialectics
123
FransH.vanEemeren
FacultyofHumanities,DepartmentofSpeech
Communication,ArgumentationTheory
andRhetoric
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam
TheNetherlands
ISSN 1566-7650 ISSN 2215-1907 (electronic)
Argumentation Library
ISBN978-3-319-20954-8 ISBN978-3-319-20955-5 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2015946084
SpringerChamHeidelbergNewYorkDordrechtLondon
©SpringerInternationalPublishingSwitzerland2015
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
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
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
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
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
foranyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
SpringerInternationalPublishingAGSwitzerlandispartofSpringerScience+BusinessMedia
(www.springer.com)
Preface
Myacademiclifehasinthefirstplacebeendevotedtothestudyofargumentation,
more in particular to the development of the pragma-dialectical theory of argu-
mentation.Inordertorealizemyscholarlyambitions,Iinstigatedandcarriedouta
systematic research program in the department of Speech Communication,
Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. Alone or
together with other members of the department, I have published the results of the
researchinagreatmanypapersinjournalsandconferenceproceedingsandinbook
chapters in readers.
Ithasalwaysbeenmypolicytocaptureafterasubstantialperiodofresearchthe
maininsightsgainedbytheresearchreportedintheseparatepapersinaconcluding
monograph about the general theme concentrated upon. This has resulted in the
publication of the following book volumes: Speech acts in argumentative discus-
sions (1984), Argumentation, communication, and fallacies (1992), and A sys-
tematic theory of argumentation (2004), co-authored by Rob Grootendorst;
Reconstructing argumentative discourse (1993), written with Grootendorst, Sally
Jackson, and Scott Jacobs; Argumentative indicators in discourse (2007), written
with Peter Houtlosser and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans; Fallacies and judgments
of reasonableness (2009), co-authored by Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels; and
Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse (2010).
Whileworkingonahistoricalproject,titledTheMakingofPragma-Dialectics,I
recently discovered that the idea that the monographs cover all significant insights
advanced in the various papers is not correct. Some papers treat topics not dealt
withinanyofthemonographsoronlybrieflytouchedupon.Otherpapersprovidea
more elaborate treatment of a particular topic or view than can be found in the
monographs. Still other papers go into more detail or pay a great deal more
attention to specifics that may be pertinent to some scholars. There are also papers
inwhichcertainpointsare made ina different andperhaps more enlighteningway
than in the monographs. Some other papers may be particularly worthwhile to
scholars interested in the genesis of the pragma-dialectical theory.
The title of this volume, Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative
Discourse, reflects my view that reasonableness and effectiveness are the central
v
vi Preface
issuesofargumentationtheoryandaretherefore,asamatterofcourse,theprimary
concernoftheparticipantsintheongoingpragma-dialecticalresearchprogram.The
50contributionsIhaveselectedfromthecirca340papersIhavepublishedoverthe
yearsallrelatetothethemesofreasonablenessandeffectiveness,andinsomecases
particularly to their relationship.
PartI,“ArgumentationTheoryasaDiscipline,”containscontributionsinwhich
my general views on the study of argumentation are presented—as in other cases,
often in collaboration with others. In Part II, “The Pragma-Dialectical Research
Program,” the way in which in pragma-dialectics argumentation is systematically
tackled as a topic of research is sketched. Part III, “The Dialectical Dimension of
Pragma-Dialectics,” concentrates on the pragma-dialectical coverage of the rea-
sonableness of argumentation. In Part IV, “The Pragmatic Dimension of
Pragma-Dialectics,” some contributions are collected which explain how argu-
mentativediscoursecanbeexaminedasverbalcommunicationinnaturallanguage.
Part V, “Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse,” discusses the
extendedversionofpragma-dialecticsinwhichinsightsfromrhetoricareincluded.
Part VI, “Analysis as Reconstruction,” includes contributions about the
pragma-dialectical method of interpreting argumentative discourse. Part VII,
“Fallacies in Argumentative Discourse,” contains papers dealing with fallacies as
violationsofthepragma-dialecticalrulesforcriticaldiscussion.PartVIII,“Various
Theoretical Issues,” explains the pragma-dialectical views of context, the role of
logic, verbal indicators of argumentative moves and argument schemes, and the
process of writing and rewriting argumentative texts. In Part IX, “Experimental
ResearchConcerningArgumentation,”thepragma-dialecticalquantitativeapproach
of empirical research of argumentative discourse is illustrated. Part X, “Case
Studies,” presents the applications of the pragma-dialectical method of analysis to
specific historical cases of argumentative discourse.
Amsterdam Frans H. van Eemeren
February 2015
Contents
Part I Argumentation Theory as a Discipline
1 Argumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Frans H. van Eemeren, Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs
1.1 What Is Argumentation? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 A Brief History of the Study of Argumentative Discourse . . . . 5
1.3 Contemporary Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.4 Case Study: Critical Analysis of Advertorials. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5 Practical Applications of Argumentation Study. . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.5.1 Pedagogical Applications: The Cultivation
of Argumentative Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.5.2 Interventions: The Design
of Discourse Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Further Reading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2 The Language of Argumentation in Dutch. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Frans H. van Eemeren
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3 In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate
to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Frans H. van Eemeren
3.1 Overview of the Expose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2 Argumentation Theory as a Hybrid Discipline . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 The Dialectical and the Rhetorical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.4 Connections Between Modern Argumentation
Theory and Aristotle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.5 Dealing with the Relationship of Dialectic and Rhetoric . . . . . 41
vii
viii Contents
3.6 The Pragma-Dialectical Gambit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4 Bingo! Promising Developments in Argumentation Theory. . . . . . 55
Frans H. van Eemeren
4.1 Changes in the State of the Art
of Argumentation Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2 Empiricalization of the Treatment of Argumentation . . . . . . . . 57
4.3 Contextualization of the Treatment of Argumentation . . . . . . . 62
4.4 Formalization of the Treatment of Argumentation. . . . . . . . . . 66
4.5 Bingo!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Part II The Pragma-Dialectical Research Program
5 Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Frans H. van Eemeren
5.1 The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics . . . . . . 82
5.2 The Philosophical Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3 Theoretical Estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4 Reconstruction Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
5.5 Empirical Estate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
5.6 Practical Estate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.7 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
6 The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. . . . . . . . . 111
Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser
6.1 Rhetorical and Dialectical Perspectives on Argumentation . . . . 111
6.2 The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. . . . . . . . . . 112
6.3 A Research Programme for the Study of Argumentation . . . . . 114
6.3.1 Philosophical Research: Argumentation
and Conceptions of Reasonableness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3.2 Theoretical Research: Models of Argumentation
in Discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6.3.3 Empirical Research: Properties
of Argumentative Reality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.4 Analytical Research: Reconstruction
of Argumentative Discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
6.3.5 Practical Research: Ways of Improving
Argumentative Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
Contents ix
6.4 The Incompatibility of the Rhetorical
and the Dialectical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
6.5 Reconciling Dialectical and Rhetorical Insights
in the Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
6.6 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
7 From Ideal Model of Critical Discussion to Situated
Argumentative Discourse: The Step-by-Step Development
of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. . . . . . . . . . . 127
Frans H. van Eemeren
7.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
7.2 The Pragma-Dialectical Standard Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
7.3 Consolidating the Standard Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
7.4 The Extended Pragma-Dialectical Theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7.5 Empirical Research of Effectiveness Through
Reasonableness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
7.6 Taking the Institutional Context of Argumentative
Discourse into Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
7.7 Institutional Preconditions for Strategic Maneuvering
and Argumentative Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
8 The Case of Pragma-Dialectics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser
8.1 The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentation . . . . . . . . 149
8.2 The Five Components of the Pragma-Dialectical
Research Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
8.3 Four Meta-Theoretical Premises Serving
as Methodological Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
8.4 The Model of a Critical Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
8.5 Stages in Resolving a Difference of Opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
8.6 Distribution of Speech Acts in a Critical Discussion . . . . . . . . 158
8.7 Analysis as Reconstruction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
8.8 An Analytic Overview of Argumentative Discourse . . . . . . . . 160
8.9 Analytic Transformations in Reconstructing
Argumentative Discourse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
8.10 Rules for Critical Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
8.11 The Ten Commandments of Critical Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 166
8.12 Fallacies as Counterproductive Moves
in Resolving Disagreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
8.13 Violations of the Code of Conduct
for Critical Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.14 Making Use of Insight in Strategic Maneuvering . . . . . . . . . . 173