Argumentation

Analysis and Evaluation

Frans H. van Eemeren, A. Francisca Sn Henkemans

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315401126
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Filología
• Subtopic: Estudios de comunicación

This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. Attention is also paid to the way in which arguers attempt to be not just reasonable, but effective as well, by maneuvering strategically. In addition, the book provides a great variety of exercises and assignments to improve the student's skill in presenting argumentation.

The authors begin their treatment of argumentation theory at the same juncture where argumentation also starts in practice: The difference of opinion that occasions the evolvement of the argumentation. Each chapter begins with a short summary of the essentials and ends with a number of exercises that students can use to master the material. Argumentation is the first introductory textbook of this kind. It is intended as a general introduction for students who are interested in a proper conduct of argumentative discourse. Suggestions for further reading are made for each topic and several extra assignments are added to the exercises.

Special features:

• A concise and complete treatment of both the theoretical backgrounds and the practice of argumentation analysis and evaluation.

• Crucial concepts from pragmatics (speech act theory, Grice's cooperative principle) presented in a non-technical way; introducing the theory of verbal communication.

• The first textbook treatment of strategic maneuvering as a way of balancing being reasonable with being effective

• Exercises and assignments based on real-life texts from a variety of contexts.

1Standpoints and Differences of Opinion

Essentials

A standpoint can be positive or negative. In both cases the standpoint can lead to a difference of opinion. A difference of opinion arises when one party’s standpoint meets with doubt from the other party. This is an elementary difference of opinion, which is single and nonmixed. If the other party is not only doubtful but adopts an opposing standpoint, then the difference of opinion is mixed. And if there is more than one proposition involved, the difference of opinion is multiple. An analysis of argumentation must begin by identifying the main difference of opinion, and what type of difference of opinion it is.

1.1Discussion and Disagreement

People often disagree with each other. There’s nothing special about that. It is unusual, though, for two people having an exchange about a certain topic to simply accept the fact that their opinions differ and just leave it at that. Often that would be unwise, and sometimes even impossible because they need to go on based on the one view or the other. To resolve the difference of opinion, they then need to discuss the matter and try to reach some kind of agreement. This book is about the use of argumentation as a means to achieve a resolution of a difference by coming to a reasonable agreement.

Argumentation is a verbal activity that can be performed orally and in writing. It is a social activity directed at other people. On top of that, it is also a rational activity aimed at defending an opinion in such a way that it is acceptable to a reasonable critic. A person who argues something starts – rightly or wrongly – from the assumption that there is a difference of opinion. By putting forward the propositions which constitute the argumentation, the speaker or writer attempts to convince the listener or reader. These observations can be summarized in the following definition:

Argumentation is a verbal, social, and rational activity aimed at convincing a reasonable critic of the acceptability of a certain opinion by advancing one or more propositions designed to justify that standpoint.

This definition of argumentation not only refers to the activity of advancing reasons but also to the shorter or longer text that results from it. This process, and especially the ensuing product, is also referred to by the term argument. It is important that it is clearly noticed that the term argumentation (or argument) has these two different meanings, but it is even more important to realize that the study of argumentation concentrates not only on argumentation as a product of rational reasoning, as is usually the case in logic, but also incorporates the pragmatic aspects of argumentation as a developing process of verbal communication and social interaction.

In a purely logical approach to argumentation, a great number of verbal, contextual, situational, and other pragmatic factors influencing the course and outcome of the communication process of argumentative discourse are not regarded. Among them are the way in which the argumentation is phrased in ordinary language, who exactly is addressing whom, the precise situation in which this happens, and the relevant things that happened before. Logicians are not generally concerned with argumentation as it is put forward in natural circumstances by somebody who attempts to convince someone else of a certain standpoint, but with abstract “argument forms” or “patterns of reasoning” in which a conclusion is derived from a particular set of formalized premises. Their aim is to clearly distinguish between the “formally valid” argument forms underlying specific specimens of reasoning and argument forms that are not formally valid. To be able to do so, they leave crucial (“pragmatic”) aspects of argumentative reality that are indispensable for dealing adequately with argumentation outside consideration.

In argumentative discourse there is always an explicit or implicit appeal to some standard of reasonableness, but this does not, of course, mean that each argumentation is indeed reasonable. In practice, an argumentation can be lacking in all kinds of respects. It is the task of argumentation analysts evaluating argumentation to determine whether the soundness criteria are sufficiently satisfied for the argumentation to be called “reasonable.” This means that the study of argumentation has a normative dimension, relating to the ideal of reasonableness that is to be maintained, as well as a descriptive dimension pertaining to argumentative reality and its practical problems. In our method for analyzing and evaluating argumentation these two dimensions are systematically integrated. We will start our treatment of argumentation where argumentative discourse starts in practice, with the difference of opinion that is the source of disagreement.

1.2Explicit and Implicit Differences of Opinion

A difference of opinion comes into being as soon as a standpoint is not fully shared by the people who communicate. This is already the case when someone advances a view and someone else is not convinced that this standpoint is acceptable, but is in doubt about it. It need not be the case that the other person adopts the opposite standpoint.

A difference of opinion comes into the open when one party expresses doubt (or criticism) about the acceptability of the other party’s standpoint. To have a difference of opinion, it is enough that the responding party is not sure about their position:

Paula:	I think schools should spend more time teaching writing skills.
Jack:	I don’t know, I’ve never really thought about it.

A difference of opinion or disagreement always involves two parties. One party puts forward a standpoint and the other party expresses doubts about it – or, as often happens, goes a step further and rejects the standpoint:

Paula:	I think schools should spend more time teaching writing skills.
Dan:	That’s ridiculous! More than enough time is spent on that already.

In the above example, the difference of opinion is explicit: both the standpoint and the rejection of it are clearly expressed. But this is not always the case. Especially in written texts, the difference of opinion often remains implicit, because only one party is expressing their views. The other party’s skepticism or doubt is then anticipated:

Paula:

Schools should spend more time teaching writing skills, because students these days have a hard time putting their thoughts on paper. Furthermore, our schools spend ridiculously little time on these skills compared to other countries.

We can be sure that Paula anticipates that her standpoint will not be immediately accepted by everyone because she goes to the trouble of giving arguments in support of it. (Of course, it is possible that she is mistaken and that there is in fact no difference of opinion between her and her readers.)

1.3Positive and Negative Standpoints

In a difference of opinion, two different positions are taken with regard to a certain issue. In the proposition at issue a property or quality is ascribed to persons or things referred to. In the proposition at issue in the standpoint “In my view, Barack Obama was a great president,” for instance, the quality of being a great president is ascribed to the person called Barack Obama.

A proposition can be a description of facts or events (“Last year ticket sales at movie theaters declined by 3 percent”), a prediction (“Knowledge of foreign languages will be an increasingly important requirement in job applications”), a judgment (“Amsterdam is the cleanest city in Europe”), or advice (“You should brush your teeth with the softest possible toothbrush”).

With respect to a proposition, a positive, a negative, or a neutral position can be taken. Dan, Paula, and Alice each take a different position with respect to the proposition that UFOs are a hoax:

Dan:	I think UFOs are a hoax.
Paula:	I don’t think UFOs are a hoax.
Alice:	I don’t know whether UFOs are a hoax or not.

In this example Dan has committed himself positively to the proposition that UFOs are a hoax. He has adopted a positive standpoint with respect to the proposition. Paula, who believes that UFOs are not a hoax, has committed herself negatively to the proposition; she has adopted a negative standpoint. Alice has not committed herself to this proposition in any way, because she is not sure about it. For the time being, she is taking a neutral position (sometimes called a “zero” standpoint).

In a difference of opinion there is always at least one person who puts forward a positive or negative standpoint with respect to some proposition, and one person who has doubts or does not wish to be tied down to any particular standpoint. It may be that the second party not only has doubts but also adopts an opposing standpoint, but then we have a more complex form of disagreement that will be discussed later.

1.4Standpoints and Expressions of Doubt

Since people can have opinions on any subject whatsoever, the standpoints they adopt can relate to propositions of all kinds. A man may think his wife would look better with a different haircut, or that his tennis game will improve if he uses a lighter-weight racket, or that methadone should be covered by nat...