Pragma-Dialectics

In their famous The New rhetoric Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca presented a category of quasi-logical arguments as persuasive because of their similarity with mathematical and logical demonstrations. In this article, the persuasiveness of the quasi-logical argument is viewed from the perspective of pragma-dialectics. The first part of the article deals with the possibilities of transformation of the concept of quasi-logical arguments presented by the new rhetoric in accordance with meta-theoretical principles of pragma-dialectics. The crucial problem seems to be the identification of the function of quasi-logical arguments in solving a conflict of opinion. The second part compares the options of functionalization of quasi-logical arguments in a case study of their subtype, arguments of reciprocity. This paper presents a functionalization submitted by Bart Garssen that identifies quasi-logical reciprocity as one argument scheme appealing to the principle of “giving in return.” A competing functionalization is then presented based on the reconstruction of illustrations in The New rhetoric that correspond to the type of reciprocal relationships as “give-give” that are also considered by Garssen. It is shown that reciprocal arguments in The New rhetoric are not limited to one scheme in a pragma-dialectical sense, but the arguments with this type of reciprocal relationship can implement three different schemes.

Textbooks provide an indispensable framework on which teachers and students build upon. Evaluation on its part, is a dynamic process which investigates the suitability and appropriateness of an existing practice. It is a useful device for both teachers and material writers as an underlying element in the development of innovations and modifications within the teaching/learning context. Therefore, it is obvious that textbook evaluation constitutes a crucial factor in addressing cumulative deficiencies associated with our teaching/learning institution in general and in our English Language Teaching endeavours. It has been observed that Mastering English series pose several problems to both teachers and learners of English language in Cameroon. This article sets out to investigate the Mastering English series with a focus on the students' book 5 to find out the extent to which the book aligns with the stipulations of the CBA in Cameroon. The analysis in this study was predicated on the hypothesis that Mastering English book 5 needs great improvement to really meet both the needs of learners and the requirement of the CBA. Both the theoretical and empirical findings reveal general misgivings about Mastering English book 5 and the implementation of the CBA in the context of Cameroon.

This article provides a brief selective overview and discussion of recent research into natural language argumentation that may inform the study of human reasoning on the assumption that an episode of argumentation issues an invitation to accept a corresponding inference. As this research shows, arguers typically seek to establish new consequences based on prior information. And they typically do so vis-à-vis a real or an imagined opponent, or an opponent-position, in ways that remain sensitive to considerations of context, audiences, and goals. Deductively valid inferences remain a limiting case of such reasoning. In view of these insights, it may appear less surprising that allegedly “irrational” behavior can regularly be produced in experimental settings that expose subjects to standardized reasoning tasks.

Vygotsky’s project needs to be grasped as a yet unnamed type of an approach which, in continuing the revolutionary spirit of Marxism, moved beyond the old divide between theory and practice and instead, embodied their unity in a peculiar blend with distinct philosophical, theoretical and ethical/ideological underpinnings. The goal of creating
new psychology for a society that itself needed to be created on principles of social justice and equality guided this approach and turned it into a critical-practical project of social transformation and change. The main argument advanced in this paper is that at the core of Vygotsky’s method is the novel transformative onto-epistemology, coupled with the socio-political ethos of equality and justice, which challenge ideology of adaptation and control. I discuss this set of issues in light of a transformative activist stance that puts premium on researchers’ commitments and value orientations.

Starting with a brief overview of current usages (Sect. 2), this paper offers some constituents of a use-based analysis of 'fallacy', listing 16 conditions that have, for the most part implicitly, been discussed in the literature (Sect. 3). Our thesis is that at least three related conceptions of 'fallacy' can be identified. The 16 conditions thus serve to " carve out " a semantic core and to distinguish three core-specifications. As our discussion suggests, these specifications can be related to three normative positions in the philosophy of human reasoning: the meliorist, the apologist, and the panglossian (Sect. 4). Seeking to make these conditions available for scholarly discussion, this analysis-sketch should not be viewed as final or exhaustive.

This article appropriates Thomas Conley’s (1990) four classical positions on the nature and function of rhetoric, and assesses their relevance vis-à-vis three contemporary normative approaches to argumentation: the epistemological approach, pragma-dialectical theory, and informal logic. In each case, the room for the integration of rhetorical insights into argument evaluation is found to be restricted by dialectical and logico-epistemic norms endorsed in these approaches. Moreover, when rhetorical insights could fit the so restricted room, then the reliability and the specificity of such insights remain inversely related, with methodologically well-hardened knowledge of what persuades remaining too general. The trade-off between reliability and specificity of suasory knowledge, or so is our thesis, undermines the claim that rhetorical insights can presently inform the evaluation of natural language arguments in these three normative approaches.

Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers' character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.

How might argumentation scholars approach sound? Using the analytics afforded by strategic maneuvering, this essay identifies three unique features of sonic presentational devices: they are immersive, immediate and embodied. Although these features offer arguers presentational resource, they also pose new problems to the reasonable resolution of disagreement: immersion hazards overlap (mask), immediacy risks rate of delivery beyond reflection (velocity), and materi-ality can coerce listeners (force). To theorize strategic use of sound, I reconstruct and analyze a popular Radiolab segment ''The Unconscious Toscanini of the Brain.'' I find Radiolab uses three different sonic figures: (1) synchronicity, or the translation of data into sound to foreground temporal relations; (2) musical stings, an auditory invocation of embodied memory and (3) the wave, a sonic strategy to arouse and narrow attention. I conclude that Radiolab's use of sound is reasonable because it extends the critical discussion.

This contribution discusses some problems of Pragma-Dialectics and explains them by its consensualistic view of the function of argumentation and by its philosophical underpinnings. It is suggested that these problems can be overcome by relying on a better epistemology and on an epistemological theory of argumentation. On the one hand Pragma-Dialectics takes unqualified consensus as the aim of argumentation, which is problematic, (Sect. 2) on the other it includes strong epistemological and rationalistic elements (Sect. 3). The problematic philosophical underpinnings of Pragma-Dialectics, specifically Critical Rationalism as well as Logical Constructivism and Dialogic Logic of the Erlangen School, are among the sources of this incoherence (Sect. 4). A detailed critique of the Pragma-Dialectical discussion rules shows the negative consequences of this foundation and indicates how they could be avoided (Sects. 5, 6).

gabor@fi lozofi a.bme.hu The paper seeks to show that the theory of strategic maneuvering, the most recent version of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, can make vital contribution to understanding how commercials are designed and defended against legal challenges. If commercials can be subjected to argumentation-theoretic analysis, that would also show that the idea that commercials never constitute genuine arguments is mistaken. We will begin by sketching the pragma-dialectical approach and the theory of strategic maneuvering, then we apply the latter to two cases: the argument in a commercial aiming to persuade customers that Dove Intensive Cream moisturizes better than Nivea's similar product, and the argument given by Dove's manufacturer, Unilever, during the proceedings conducted by the Hungarian Competition Authority, which is intended to convince the Authority that the commercial is not deceptive.

In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas production in Europe. On the one hand, analyses predominantly grasp the debate in terms of pro-and-con dialectics, as if the pro-shale gas camp faced the anti-shale gas camp in a dyadic clash of opposing voices. On the other hand, it is commonly recognised that this debate is driven by multi-party and multi-position argumentative dynamics. In this broader context, I focus on one pivotal contribution to the debate – Gazprom's press release from October 2013 outlining Russia's energy giant's strategy of dealing with unconventional gas production. I employ concepts and methods of argumentative discourse analysis to contend that an arguer to a multi-party debate – argumentative polylogue – faces a number of constraints and opportunities that cannot be adequately grasped in terms of dyadic pro-and-con dialectics. The analysis reveals how Gazprom needs to simultaneously design its discourse to address a number of other parties who might also disagree among themselves: from Greenpeace to European Union governments to shale gas companies. I show why and how a stakeholder analysis used in organisational communication might lead to a better understanding of this form of multi-party public argumentation.

One of the fundamental concerns of translation quality assessment (TQA) is to reach valid and reliable criteria for evaluating translation quality. One of the lines of TQA has relied on argumentation theory, although this specific line has fallen into stagnation. The purpose of this study is to primarily review Williams’s application of Toulmin’s argumentation model to TQA, and secondly highlight certain shortcomings of the model. Two basic problems that seriously attenuate the application of Williams’s model are observed: first, the model does not consider literary translation, and second the model fails to take into account complex argumentation. To solve these problems, this study proposes a novel method based on pragma-dialectics, called argumentation-based literary translation quality assessment, which is in line with recent trends in translation philosophy.

Governments’ policies and actions often precipitate public blame firestorms and mediated scandals targeted at individual or collective policy makers. In the face of losing credibility and resources, officeholders are tempted to apply strategies of blame avoidance which permeate administrative structures, operations and language use.

Linguistic aspects of blame avoidance are yet to be studied by discourse analysts in great detail. In this article, I contribute to filling this gap in knowledge by proposing an improved heuristic for understanding typical macroconversational discursive practices adopted by officeholders in the circumstances of blame risk to achieve the goal of positive self-presentation.

Based on a multidisciplinary review of scholarly literature, I show how personal and institutional risk aversion involves the application of certain strategies of argumentation, framing, denial, social actor and action representation, legitimation and manipulation. I use concrete textual examples from public statements of UK government officeholders to illustrate how blame avoidance works at the highest level of administration.

I argue that to understand blame avoidance as a dominant recurring theme in public communication we should look beyond current linguistic approaches to conflict talk. This could lead to the application of new useful analytic tools within discourse studies and open new avenues of critical research into language use in politics and bureaucratic organisations.

Secondo uno dei principi basilari della Retorica di Aristotele, i parlanti/ascoltatori non sono utenti esterni al linguaggio, bensì elementi costitutivi del discorso. Grazie a questa intuizione è possibile ripensare il ruolo della soggettività nell’argomentazione, mettendo in discussione la tradizionale distinzione tra argomentazione ad rem e argomentazione ad hominem. La dimensione personale del discorso (espressione che include le tre nozioni che in differenti tradizioni sono state utilizzate per designarla: ethos, argomento ad hominem e persona) non è un fattore di disturbo da neutralizzare ma, al contrario, un elemento vitale dell’argomentazione.
Privilegiando il punto di vista della retorica, lungo un asse di pensiero che da Aristotele e Vico arriva fino a Perelman e alla teoria dell’argomentazione contemporanea, il tema è affrontato dapprima dal punto di vista del parlante, discutendo, dunque, principalmente le problematiche relative alla costruzione di una certa immagine di sé e degli altri. Nella seconda parte, a prevalere è il punto di vista dell’ascoltatore. La questione primaria diviene quella relativa ai diversi modi in cui l’ascoltatore accorda fiducia al suo interlocutore; in breve, il tema generale del consenso.
La posta in gioco è, in ultima analisi, il ruolo della razionalità nella prassi umana, caratterizzata da una costitutiva e ineliminabile incertezza, e il modo in cui tale razionalità va pensata.

According to logical psychologism that was popular in the nineteenth century, logic was regarded as a natural ability of human psychology. Consequently, the logical competence as a realization of logic knowledge was treated as one of the innate features of human thinking. Nevertheless, within cognitive science it was experimentally proved that our thinking is not free from cognitive biases and to the same extent our reasoning is not free from logical fallacies. Hence, we are forced to consciously clear the thinking of possible distortions to follow logical norms and to realize the logical competence thereby. In the paper, it is shown that some cognitive biases are observed even at the level of cellular reactions to the environment and then at the level of animal behavior. Therefore not logic, but cognitive biases are a natural (biological) mechanism of human thinking. So, the problem of defining the logical competence arises. In this paper, there are some arguments that the logical competence has once appeared as an especial social practice and it has then been developed for a long time before the first treatises on logic.

Existen posturas encontradas con respecto a si se puede hablar de argumentación visual. Estas se pueden dividir entre aquellos que sostienen que la argumentación visual existe y aquellos que afirman que no. En primer término, los que niegan la posibilidad de que las imágenes puedan por sí solas constituir una argumentación, en general, le atribuyen a la imagen un rol secundario o subordinado a la palabra oral o escrita. Y en segundo término, los que defienden la existencia de argumentos en imágenes consideran que ciertas imágenes pueden ser autónomas y conformar por sí mismas una argumentación consistente. El tema que me propuse es, sin duda un tema polémico y no pretendo con esto encontrar una vía para cerrar la discusión sino sintetizar algunas de estas posturas para abrir el campo a la discusión. No obstante, creo poder anticipar desde el inicio, que la disidencia no parte de confundir la argumentación con lo simbólico –lo cual el lícito- sino de reducir lo simbólico únicamente al lenguaje verbal.

The paper deals with the possibilities of reconstruction of metaphors as a means of argumentation provided by pragma-dialectics. In the case of Lincoln’s famous statement, in which he uses the metaphor of “swapping horses while crossing a stream” for replacing the President, two methods of the reconstruction currently under consideration are first introduced: metaphor as an argument by analogy in the “standard” model of pragma-dialectics and as a presentation device in pragma-dialectics extended by the concept of strategic maneuvering. Then, a competing reconstruction of Lincoln’s metaphors in the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) is presented, which is based on the development of the pragma-dialectical concept of material and procedural starting-points. Lincoln’s argument is reconstructed as a complex argument, where the metaphor figures as a sub-argument using locus from analogy that is used to support a datum in the main branch of the argument. This reconstruction is compared with previous solutions, and benefits of AMT are presented: the transparency of the captured argument structure and a more complex view on the strategic function of metaphor. For research of the strategic function of metaphor, the concept of keyword and the results of the research of the interaction between datum and endoxon are used. It is proposed to consider metaphor as a lexical unit used to identify a keyword.

Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory has received criticism from epistemological
argumentation theorists. While the former emphasizes argumentation as aimed at resolving differences of opinion through adequate procedures, the latter emphasizes that argumentation is aimed at reaching a justified conclusion of the argumentation. In this paper pragma-dialectics is analyzed and two objections considered. The first objection pertains to the pragma-dialectical definition of reasonable argumentation, the other to the lack of an account of normativity of argumentation in pragma-dialectics. It is argued that the objections are not convincing.

The article focuses on  the New Rhetoric concept of quasi-logical arguments imitating logical or mathematical demonstrations, and
examines it from the point of view of pragma-dialectics as a device
contributing towards an effective resolving differences of opinion. It is
shown that the category of quasi-logical arguments cannot be considered as a legitimate argument scheme or a united type of strategic
maneuvering. It is suggested to consider the category of quasi-logical
arguments as a class of specific strategic maneuvers increasing the
efficiency of arguments under certain circumstances. This approach is
demonstrated in the case study of the pragma-dialectical analysis of the
quasi-logical scheme of probability.

Modern executive politics is characterised by blame games – offensive and defensive symbolic performances by various individual or collective social actors. In this article, I propose a discursive approach to analysing opposition–government blame games where top politicians try to persuade mass audiences to side with them in disputes over government's culpability by using carefully crafted written texts.

Drawing insights and concepts from the tradition of discourse-historical studies into political communication as well as the recent literature on blame avoidance in government, I analyse conflicting opinion pieces published by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the UK in the wake of the global financial crisis that developed since 2007.

I present a basic functional argument model of attributing and avoiding blame, reconstruct the competing argumentation schemes that help us interpret public debates over the crisis, and show how blame is attached or deflected using various persuasive discursive devices, such as metaphors, lexical cohesion, and ways of framing and positioning, that underlie particular attacks, justifications, or excuses. In conclusion, I emphasise the importance of looking beyond the formal structure of the arguments to identify the more subtle emotional appeals used in government-related blame games.

In this paper I develop and defend a form of argumentative normativity that is not based on fundamental principles. I first argue that research agendas that aim to discover (or claimed to have discovered) fundamental principles of ‘good’ argumentative discourse share one crucial weak spot, viz. circularity. I then argue that this weak spot can be avoided in a pancritical (Bartley, 1984) view of normativity.

Este artículo cuestiona el uso de la técnica de la reconstrucción argumentativa como criterio para la identificación de argumentos. Para realizar esto, hago énfasis en un tipo de argumento que apela al gusto. Primero, relaciono tal técnica con las formas en las que las teorías de la pragma-dialéctica y la lógica informal han definido la argumentación. Segundo, expongo diferentes casos límite a la reconstrucción, como los argumentos mediante actos de habla directivos, expresivos y compromisorios, los argumentos narrativos, o los argumentos visuales. Tercero, sumo a estos casos el de un argumento que apela al gusto mediante el análisis de un diálogo. Cuarto, concluyo el artículo exponiendo algunas motivaciones para estudiar casos como el presentado y esbozando algunos problemas derivados del presente estudio.

Many recent discussions about Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT) not only advance the research of metaphor theory, but also significantly contribute to a comprehensive understanding of metaphor, a ubiquitous yet complex phenomenon. In this paper we contend that DMT should not be regarded merely as a revitalization of traditional view of metaphor in rhetoric; rather, its con- tribution is undeniably significant and deserves its due attention. DMT is devel- oped based on the integration of conceptual metaphor theory and discourse practice, and complements current studies of metaphor through its emphasis on consciousness and the communicative dimension, albeit there are also some inadequacies of DMT.

A still uninvestigated argumentative reasoning hides behind news texts, in the
discussions surrounding the writing process. I try to fill this gap by reconstructing how newsroom
decision-making functions from a combined argumentative and discourse analytical perspective. In
order to do so, I analyze the editorial meeting discussion about a potential news item and its
production as an argumentative activity type, using a French- and German-language corpus collected
at the Swiss public broadcast service.

The aim of this study was to further understanding of blame in systemic therapy. Five families were chosen by their therapeutic team as engaging in blaming of a kind that the therapists found difficult to work with. Couples from each of the five families participated. A video extract from therapy identified by therapists as typifying blaming within the family was used as a focus for semistructured interviews with each parent. Transcripts were analyzed according to the procedures of grounded theory. On the basis of this inductive qualitative analysis, a framework of understanding emerged from the data consisting of the core category, “dialectical understanding,” and an accompanying set of overarching themes. These themes capture the way in which participants oscillated among 13 dialecics in their discussion of blame within their family and within family therapy. The model provides a framework for analyzing the style and content of therapy conversations with a view to helping therapists facilitate therapeutic change in this difficult client group.