Books by Marcin Lewinski
Argumentation in Complex Communication: Managing Disagreement in a Polylogue, 2023
A pervasive aspect of human communication and sociality is argumentation: the practice of making ... more A pervasive aspect of human communication and sociality is argumentation: the practice of making and criticizing reasons in the context of doubt and disagreement. Argumentation underpins and shapes the decision-making, problem-solving, and conflict management which are fundamental to human relationships. However, argumentation is predominantly conceptualized as two parties arguing pro and con positions with each other in one place. This dyadic bias undermines the capacity to engage argumentation in complex communication in contemporary, digital society. This book offers an ambitious alternative course of inquiry for the analysis, evaluation, and design of argumentation as polylogue: various players arguing over many positions across multiple places. Taking up key aspects of the twentieth century revival of argumentation as a communicative, situated practice, the polylogue framework engages a wider range of discourses, messages, interactions, technologies, and institutions necessary for adequately engaging the contemporary entanglement of argumentation and complex communication in human activities.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The goal of this volume is to further the examination of the role, shape, and quality of argument... more The goal of this volume is to further the examination of the role, shape, and quality of argumentation in political deliberation. The chapters collected in the volume employ the concepts and methods developed within argumentation theory to investigate the specifics of political discourse across various deliberative arenas: from debates in the European Parliament, consensus conferences and public hearings in France, discussions in Dutch online forums, to exchanges of comments in online versions of British newspapers. In this way, the studies reveal the inner workings of argumentative interactions that constitute deliberative discourse – and thus importantly contribute to the study of public deliberation. This should be of interest to the students of argumentation, deliberation, and political discourse. In addition, the volume problematizes and theorizes some vital issues related to the study of situated argumentation, thus advancing the study of argumentation in context.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Papers by Marcin Lewinski
TOPOI, 2023
We explore a particular type of propagandistic message, which we call “provocative insinuation”. ... more We explore a particular type of propagandistic message, which we call “provocative insinuation”. For example: ‘Iraqi refugee is convicted in Germany of raping and murdering teenage girl’. Although this sentence seems to merely report a fact, it also conveys a potentially hateful message about Iraqi refugees. We look at the argumentative roles that these utterances play in public discourse. Specifically, we argue that they implicitly address the question of the integration of refugees and migrants, and in fact aim to tilt the audience against these groups by strongly inviting hearers to make generalisations based on “striking” properties. We examine different strategies to counteract the conveyed hateful message.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Languages, 2022
Authority is both a pragmatic condition of much public discourse and a form of argumentative appe... more Authority is both a pragmatic condition of much public discourse and a form of argumentative appeal routinely used in it. The goal of this contribution is to propose a new account of challenging authority in argumentative discourse that benefits from the interplay of the resources of recent speech act theory and argumentation theory. Going beyond standard approaches of the two disciplines, the paper analyzes nuanced forms of establishing and, especially, challenging discourse-related authority. Can Donald Trump advise his own scientific advisors on potential COVID-19 treatments? Addressing questions like this, the paper identifies various paradoxes of authority and the forms of authority discussed in the literature. It then distinguishes between argument from authority (or expert opinion) and argument to authority (or expert opinion) and argues that this rearranged structure mutually benefits the pragmatic account of speech act theory and the schematic account of argumentation theory in the task of better understanding and critiquing discourses such as Trump’s.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Pandemic of Argumentation , 2022
In this contribution, we explore the plausibility and consequences of treating arguments over wha... more In this contribution, we explore the plausibility and consequences of treating arguments over what counts as a COVID-19 death as metalinguistic arguments. While unquestionably related to the epidemiological and public health issues, these arguments are also arguments about how a term should be used. As such, they touch upon some of the foundational issues in meta-semantics, discussed in the recent literature on metalinguistic negotiations, conceptual ethics, and conceptual engineering. Against this background, we study official statements (of WHO, governments) and media reports to critically reconstruct the metalinguistic elements of the dispute over what a COVID-19 death is. We analyze in particular how epistemic and practical reasons are intertwined in nuanced and complex ways to produce an interesting type of metalinguistic interventions.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Informal Logic, 2021
I challenge two key assumptions of speech act theory, as applied to argumentation: illocutionary ... more I challenge two key assumptions of speech act theory, as applied to argumentation: illocutionary monism, grounded in the idea each utterance has only one (primary) illocutionary force, and the dyadic reduction, which models interaction as a dyadic affair between only two agents (speaker-hearer, proponentopponent). I show how major contributions to speech act inspired study of argumentation adhere to these assumptions even as illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues is a significant empirical fact in need of theoretical attention. I demonstrate this with two examples where arguers interacting with multiple persons convey plural, argumentatively relevant illocutionary forces. Understanding illocutionary pluralism in argumentative polylogues also affords a better account of fallacious and manipulative discourse.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Organon F, 2021
Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the clas... more Conclusions of theoretical reasoning are assertions-or at least speech acts belonging to the class of assertives, such as hypotheses, predictions or estimates. What, however, are the conclusions of practical reasoning? Employing the concepts of speech act theory, in this paper I investigate which speech acts we perform when we're done with an instance of a practical argument and present its result in a linguistic form. To this end, I first offer a detailed scheme of practical argument suitable for an external pragmatic account (rather than an internal cognitive account). Resorting to actual examples, I then identify a class of action-inducing speech acts as characteristic conclusions of practical argument. I argue that these speech acts-promises, orders, pieces of advice, proposals, and others-differ chiefly depending on the agent of the action induced (me, us, you, them) and their illocutionary strength.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Synthese, 2021
This paper addresses the following question: Can one and the same utterance token, in one unique ... more This paper addresses the following question: Can one and the same utterance token, in one unique speech situation, intentionally and conventionally perform a plurality of illocutionary acts? While some of the recent literature has considered such a possibility (Sbisà, in: Capone, Lo Piparo, Carapezza (eds) Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy. Springer, Cham, pp 227–244, 2013; Johnson in Synthese 196(3):1151–1165, 2019), I build a case for it by drawing attention to common conversational complexities unrecognized in speech acts analysis. Traditional speech act theory treats communication as: (1) a dyadic exchange between a Speaker and a Hearer who (2) trade illocutionary acts endowed with one and only one primary force. I first challenge assumption (2) by discussing two contexts where plural illocutionary forces are performed in dyadic discussions: dilemmatic deliberations and strategic ambiguity. Further, I challenge assumption (1) by analyzing poly-adic discussions, where a speaker can target various participants with different illocutionary acts performed via the same utterance. Together, these analyses defend illocutionary pluralism as a significant but overlooked fact about communication. I conclude by showing how some phenomena recently analyzed in speech act theory—back-door speech acts (Langton, in: Fogal, Harris, Moss (eds) New work on speech acts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 144–164, 2018) and dog-whistles (Saul, in: Fogal, Harris, Moss (eds) New work on speech acts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 360–383, 2018)—implicitly presuppose illocutionary pluralism without recognizing it.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Argumentation in Context, (8)1, 2019
Introduction to the special issue of the
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 (2019)
Editors
... more Introduction to the special issue of the
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 (2019)
Editors
Marcin Lewiński | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.8.1
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1), 2019
In this paper, we analyze the argumentative strategies deployed in the Ecomodernist Manifesto, pu... more In this paper, we analyze the argumentative strategies deployed in the Ecomodernist Manifesto, published in 2015 by a group of leading environmental thinkers. We draw on pragma-dialectics and Perelman’s rhetoric to characterize manifesto as a genre of practical argumentation. Our goal is to explore the relation of manifesto as a discursive genre to the argumentative structures and techniques used in the Ecomodernist Manifesto. We therefore take into scrutiny the elements of practical argumentation employed in the manifesto and describe the polylogical strategies of dissociation in negotiating the ecological value of nature and the modernist value of progress.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Journal of Argumentation in Context, 8(1) , 2019
The paper applies argumentative discourse analysis to a corpus of official statements made by key... more The paper applies argumentative discourse analysis to a corpus of official statements made by key players (USA, EU, China, India, etc.) at the opening of the 2015 Paris Climate Conference. The chief goal is to reveal the underlying structure of practical arguments and values legitimising the global climate change policy-making. The paper investigates which of the elements of practical arguments were common and which were contested by various players. One important conclusion is that a complex, multilateral deal such as the 2015 Paris Agreement is based on a fragile consensus. This consensus can be precisely described in terms of the key premises of practical arguments that various players share (mostly: description of current circumstances and future goals) and the premises they still discuss but prefer not to prioritise (value hierarchies or precise measures). It thus provides an insight into how a fragile consensus over goals may lead to a multilateral agreement through argumentative processes.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Free download of full version: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/pjJjGM5x2UQddKrVFjy8/full
W... more Free download of full version: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/pjJjGM5x2UQddKrVFjy8/full
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US respondents, Portuguese report to argue more prosocially, cooperatively and civilly, and are more sophisticated in their reflections about arguing. We discuss these results in the context of the Portuguese notion of argumentation (argumentação) and Portuguese culture more broadly.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Argumentation, 2017
In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise ''the ... more In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise ''the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today'' (Pragmatics & Cognition, 15: 333, 2007). I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The ''presumption of veracity'' (Kauffeld) is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the Principle of Charity (Davidson, Quine), or else Gricean maxims or satisfaction conditions for speech acts (Austin, Searle). Formal presumptions are general presumptive rules of argument, theorised as topoi or acceptable inference warrants, including institutional warrants (''If not proven guilty, then innocent''). Material presumptions are acceptable outcomes of nested or outsourced arguments, which entitles arguers to use them as acceptable premises or opinions (endoxa) in further arguments without the typical burden of proof. If this is correct, then the study of presumption always collapses into the study of other, likely more fundamental , concepts. Does it render presumptions, by Occam's Razor, altogether redundant in argumentation theory? I tentatively answer this question from a consistently conversational perspective on argumentation; I argue that the pragmatic grounds for presumptions are to be found in the conditions for speech act performance in the institutional social world, as developed by Searle.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumen... more The paper offers a theoretical investigation into the sources of normativity in practical argumentation. The chief question is: Do we need objectively-minded, unbiased arguers or can we count on “good” argumentative processes in which individual biases cancel each other out? I address this question by analysing a detailed structure of practical argument and its varieties, and by discussing the tenets of a comparative approach to practical reason. I argue that given the comparative structure proposed, reasoned advocacy in argumentative activity upholds reasonableness whenever that activity is adequately designed. I propose some basic rules for such a design of practical argumentation.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In this article I scrutinise a crucial tension in understanding the debate over shale gas product... more 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.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Argumentation theory investigates the practices and standards of using arguments. Argumentation i... more Argumentation theory investigates the practices and standards of using arguments. Argumentation is understood as a communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in the context of doubt or disagreement. It thus constitutes or contributes to a wide range of fundamental social processes, from political debates to legal disputes, scientific inquiry, and interpersonal conflicts. In contrast to much research within communication, argumentation theory combines descriptive study of how we argue with normative inquiry into the standards of good argumentation. In this sense, it has a long interdisciplinary tradition that starts with ancient rhetoric, dialectic, and logic and continues today to include recent research in areas such as online communication and artificial intelligence.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Read full article here: http://rdcu.be/nkiQ
This paper offers a new way to make sense of disag... more Read full article here: http://rdcu.be/nkiQ
This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This empirical project reports data on Portuguese under-standings of, and orientations to, interp... more This empirical project reports data on Portuguese under-standings of, and orientations to, interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N=252). We report information on levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. We compare results between Portuguese men and women, and between US and Portuguese respondents. Our results reveal significant differences between the American and Portuguese orientations to argumentation, which this paper further investigates and explains.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Furth... more Most dialectical models view argumentation as a process of critically testing a standpoint. Further, they assume that what we critically test can be analytically reduced to (1) individual and (2) bi-polar standpoints. I argue that these two assumptions lead to the dominant view of dialectics as a bi-partisan argumentative discussion in which the yes-side (proponent) argues against the doubter or the no-side (opponent). I scrutinise this binary orientation in understanding argumentation by drawing on the main tenets of normative pragmatic and pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. I develop my argument by showing how argumentative practice challenges these assumptions. I then lay out theoretical reasons for this challenge. This paves the way for an enhanced conceptualisation of dialectical models and their standards of rationality in terms of multi-party discussions, or argumentative polylogues.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Marcin Lewinski
Papers by Marcin Lewinski
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 (2019)
Editors
Marcin Lewiński | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.8.1
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US respondents, Portuguese report to argue more prosocially, cooperatively and civilly, and are more sophisticated in their reflections about arguing. We discuss these results in the context of the Portuguese notion of argumentation (argumentação) and Portuguese culture more broadly.
This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
Journal of Argumentation in Context 8:1 (2019)
Editors
Marcin Lewiński | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
Mehmet Ali Üzelgün | ArgLab, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.8.1
We report data on Portuguese understandings of interpersonal arguing, based on a survey conducted in Portugal (N = 252). Employing concepts and methods developed for studying interpersonal arguing, we report on the levels of argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, personalization of conflict, and argument frames. After comparing Portuguese men and women, we compare Portuguese respondents with two groups of US respondents. In contrast to US respondents, Portuguese report to argue more prosocially, cooperatively and civilly, and are more sophisticated in their reflections about arguing. We discuss these results in the context of the Portuguese notion of argumentation (argumentação) and Portuguese culture more broadly.
This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places (venues) in addition to players (parties) and positions (standpoints) into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the broader controversy over producing oil and gas via hydraulic fracturing (fracking).
In the normative pragma-dialectical sense, fallacies are unreasonable strategic manoeuvres aimed at persuading, i.e., violations of the rules of a reasonable critical discussion that may have rhetorical allure. Determining when straw men occur is a matter of drawing the line between representation and misrepresentation in argumentation, and this can be investigated by taking into account the contextual specificities of activity types. This will answer question (1).
From a cognitive pragmatic perspective, fallacies can moreover be viewed as an arguer's attempt at contextually constraining addressees’ interpretations; their deceptive “success” characteristically requires information about the fallacious nature of the argument to be absent. We formulate our answer to question (2) in terms of such a constraint on information-processing mechanisms at play in the meaning derivation procedure.