Pragma Dialectics

I present a “reduced” version of the fifteen Pragma-dialectical rules and inquire into their theoretical status as necessary conditions for a critical discussion. Questions: (i) In what respect is PD’s non-sufficiency a deficiency, (ii) can and (iii) must it be remedied? Brief answers: (i) with respect to defining the concept ‘critical discussion,’ (ii) possibly, (iii) yes, if, and only if, one seeks to identify the concept ‘critical discussion’; no, if PD is for fallacy-detection.

This paper seeks to critically evaluate part of the New Caledonian independence debate, as discursively enacted by various social actors within the postcolonial space. It is common within Critical Discourse Analysis to investigate texts from the dominant side only and as a monologue in order to elucidate covert power processes. However, this case study simultaneously explores the counter-discourse of resistance, thus offering a more balanced insight in the ongoing conflict situation. A Pragma-Functional approach, combining Systemic Functional Linguistics and Pragma-Dialectics is applied to a set of data across various genres and registers, investigating salient patterns in the discourse samples, produced by various representatives of relevant speech communities. The study demonstrates how the interactants in the New Caledonian independence debate construe power and ideology through the transitivity choices and enthymematic structures they employ, revealing highly incongruous views a...

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. (Less)

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 materiality 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.

Il presente articolo analizza le riunioni di redazione come attività argomentative, attraverso le quali si realizza la funzione di gatekeeping entro le organizzazioni mediatiche. Particolare attenzione viene devoluta alle diverse norme che regolano le decisioni editoriali, e al rapporto tra queste norme e il dispiegarsi delle argomentazioni nelle discussioni. Ci si ricollega qui a una svolta nella ricerca sul gatekeeping: lo studio di Clayman & Reisner (1998) che considera le riunioni di redazione come luogo in cui il gatekeeping viene esercitato nell'interazione verbale. Questo approccio apre un campo di intervento promettente per l'applicazione della teoria dell'argomentazione allo studio delle norme e dei processi di decisione delle organizzazioni mediatiche. L'analisi mostra che emergono tre tipi distinti di discussione argomentativa entro l'activity type della riunione. Accanto a discussioni deliberative legate a singole decisioni editoriali, troviamo infatt...

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.

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.

This Article develops a model for analyzing legal dispute resolution systems as systems for argumentation. Our model meshes two theories of argument conceived centuries apart: contemporary argumentation theory and classical stasis theory. In this Article, we apply the model to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a proof of concept. Specifically, the model analyzes how the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure function as a staged argumentative critical discussion designed to permit judge and jury to rationally resolve litigants’ differences in a reasonable manner. At a high level, this critical discussion has three phases: a confrontation, an (extended) opening, and a concluding phase. Those phases are the umbrella under which discrete argumentation phases occur at points we call stases. Whenever litigants seek a ruling or judgment, they reach a stasis—a stopping or standing point for arguing procedural points of disagreement. During these stases, the parties make arguments that fall...

Addressing the empirical relationship between normatively good argument and persuasive outcomes requires some independently-motivated normative account (O'Keefe & Jackson 1995). Among various ways of conceiving of the normative worth of arguments, the idea of focussing on advocates' conduct (rather than some disembodied abstract representation of argument) has attracted recent attention. For example, the pragma-dialectical approach (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984) identifies rules of conduct appropriate for (different stages ...

This article demonstrates that typical restrictions which are imposed in dialogical logic in order to recover first-order logical consequence from a fragment of natural language argumentation are also forthcoming from preference profiles of boundedly rational players, provided that these players instantiate a specific player type and compute partial strategies. We present two structural rules, which are formulated similarly to closure rules for tableaux proofs that restrict players' strategies to a mapping between games in extensive forms (i.e., game trees) and proof trees. Both rules are motivated from players' preferences and limitations; they can therefore be viewed as being player-self-imposable. First-order logical consequence is thus shown to result from playing a specific type of argumentation game. The alignment of such games with the normative model of the Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is positively evaluated. But explicit rules to guarantee that the ar...