nach oben

Argumentation

Erschienen in:

01.05.2014

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry

verfasst von: Marcin Lewiński, Mark Aakhus

Erschienen in: Argumentation | Ausgabe 2/2014

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, we scrutinize the advantages and pitfalls of applying a dialectical framework to polylogue analysis and evaluation. We recognize two basic dialectical methods: interpreting polylogues as exchanges between two main camps and splitting polylogues into a multitude of dual encounters. On the basis of this critical inquiry, we lay out an argument expressing the need for an improved polylogical model and propose its basic elements.

Vorheriger Artikel Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors

Nächster Artikel Modeling Corroborative Evidence: Inference to the Best Explanation as Counter–Rebuttal

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

We only discuss here the dialectical approach to analyzing and evaluating argumentative polylogues. There are of course other perspectives investigating argumentative (rhetoric, logic) or some other aspect of rationality in collective decision-making (decision theory, social choice theory, game theory, etc.). We notice though, that while they have much to recommend, none of them focuses on the analysis and evaluation of argumentation qua interaction to the extent that dialectical approaches do.

Exactly how they start the discussion is a secondary concern for our present purposes as ultimately whether they come in with established position or develop positions in the course of the conversation, they still must end up at a single choice based on their argumentative discussion of the options.

Since we speak here of actions to be taken (whom to award a prize) rather than beliefs in the strict sense, we put the belief-related terms such as truth and falsity in inverted commas. Of course, the decision to select a given candidate is, ideally, grounded in a belief that this is indeed the best researcher.

See Lewiński, forth., for a distinction between role-based dialectics, where arguers take up the roles of the proponents and opponents of given positions, and issue-based dialectics, where arguers examine the pros and cons of a given issue without making their case for a selected position on the issue.

A di-logue in which two parties trade arguments and criticisms is a paradigmatic object for dialectical analysis. However, monological reasoning can be also reconstructed as an internal critical dialogue (e.g., Blair 1998; Jacquette 2007; Johnson 2000). The possibilities and perils of dialectically reconstructing polylogues will be discussed in the remainder of the paper.

Walton’s framework of different dialectical dialogue types allows for a dynamic dialogical analysis of the entire procedure of activities such as deliberation; but such analyses take into account all communicative aspects of deliberation (proposal making, bargaining, preference aggregation, voting), rather than the strictly argumentative exchange of reasons and criticisms (Walton 1998, Ch. 6; McBurney et al. 2007; Rehg et al. 2005).

See van Rees’s (1995) study for the transcripts of entire exchanges and her detailed analysis.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969/1958) use the term “composite audience”; Zarefsky (2008) “heterogeneous audience”; van Eemeren (2010, p. 110) distinguishes between “multiple” audience (“consisting of individuals or subgroups having different positions in the difference of opinion”) and “mixed” audience (“consisting of individuals or subgroups having different starting points”).

In a pragma-dialectical analysis the first option where one proposition is asserted and doubted (α vs. α?), the so called “single non-mixed dispute”, is the most elementary dialectical form of disagreement into which all other types of disputes can be analytically broken (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004, p. 120); the second type (α vs. ¬α) is a “single mixed dispute” since the other arguer takes up a contradictory position on the same proposition, instead of merely expressing doubt against it. Further, there is a “multiple non-mixed dispute” in which a number of propositions is doubted (e.g., α ∧ β ∧ γ vs. (α ∧ β ∧ γ)?) and a “multiple mixed dispute” where a number of propositions is contradicted (e.g., α ∧ β ∧ γ vs. ¬(α ∧ β ∧ γ)). The last option is called a “qualitatively multiple dispute” (see van Eemeren et al. 2007, pp. 26–27) since two qualitatively exclusive (contrary) propositions (α vs. β) are discussed.

Bonevac claims that “[s]omeone seeking to defend a position against a variety of opponents at once, for example, must meet a number of constraints that cannot be understood as conjunctions of constraints applied to each dispute taken individually” (Bonevac 2003, pp. 454–455, see also Lewiński 2012).

Similarly to the differences between what is good in logical and dialectical approaches to argumentation, so thoroughly examined by Hamblin (1970).

One reviewer suggested that polylogical factors in argumentation analysis are basically rhetorical concerns. But we understand this as a difference different than the one between dialectic and rhetoric. We focus here precisely on the resolution-relevant moves which, as we argue, are not always simply dyadic. Our inquiry, then, begins in the realm of the “reasonable” and dialectical—rather than “strategic” and rhetorical—aspect of strategic maneuvering in polylogical argumentation. Therefore, we disagree with a “defeatist” position in which all polylogical facets of multi-party discussions are demoted to the status of purely rhetorical complications surrounding a dyadic dialectical dispute.

See Hamblin (1970, p. 216) for the distinction between safe and risky questions.

Note that it is at the confrontation stage where the fallacy of a false dilemma can be defined in a polylogical sense: “In a context where one can discuss many propositions (poly-lemma), a di-lemma is false, because it focuses exclusively on two positions, thus preventing other positions (standpoints) from being considered.” (Lewiński 2013b, p. 14).

“Even if the principle ‘No common logic, no communication’ held, it would not follow that there must be a one logic for each polylogue, only common ground for each pair of parties in a polylogue that manage to communicate.” (Sylvan 1985, p. 110).

Cf. basic Popperian criteria for theory selection in a “game of science” (e.g. in Lakatos 1974), as well as their application to argumentation theory in: van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1988).

Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.

Aakhus, M. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs 74(1): 112–117.

Aakhus, M. 2013. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–113.

Aakhus, M., and S. Jackson. 2005. Technology, interaction and design. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. K. Fitch, and R. Sanders, 411–433. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Blair, J.A. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12(2): 325–339.CrossRef

Blair, J.A. 2012. Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as related to argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric 45(2): 148–164.CrossRef

Bonevac, D. 2003. Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation 17(4): 451–459.CrossRef

Brashers, D.E., and R.A. Meyers. 1989. Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. B.E. Gronbeck, 542–550. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.

Bruxelles, S., and C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 75–113.CrossRef

Canary, D.J., B.G. Brossmann, and D.R. Seibold. 1987. Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal 53(1): 18–37.CrossRef

Clark, H.H. 1992. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–373.CrossRef

Dascal, M. 2008. Dichotomies and types of debate. In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Feteris, E.T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRef

Fogelin, R.J. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7(1): 1–8.

Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

Jackson, S. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12(2): 183–198.CrossRef

Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.CrossRef

Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(4): 177–204.

Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Jacquette, D. 2007. Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21(2): 115–127.CrossRef

Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1): 1–20.

Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24.CrossRef

Krabbe, E.C.W. 1999. Profiles of Dialogue. In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, 25–36. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Krabbe, E.C.W. 2000. Meeting in the house of Callias: Rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14(3): 205–217.CrossRef

Lakatos, I. 1974. The role of crucial experiments in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(4): 309–325.CrossRef

Levinson, S.C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. P. Drew, and A. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.

Lewiński, M. 2012. Public deliberation as a polylogue: Challenges of argumentation analysis and evaluation. In Inside arguments: Logic and the study of argumentation, ed. H. J. Ribeiro, 223–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Lewiński, M. 2013a. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 151–177.

Lewiński, M. 2013b. Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013, ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–18. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

McBurney, P., D. Hitchcock, and S. Parsons. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.CrossRef

Mohammed, D. 2011. Strategic manoeuvring in simultaneous discussions. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1–11). CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958).

Prakken, H. 2009. Models of persuasion dialogue. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G.R. Simari, 281–300. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Rehg, W., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. 2005. Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: Assessing deliberative legitimacy. AI & SOCIETY 19(3): 203–229.CrossRef

Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.CrossRef

Salmon, M.H., and C.M. Zeitz. 1995. Analyzing conversational reasoning. Informal Logic 17(1): 1–23.

Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.

Sylvan, R. 1985. Introducing polylogue theory. Philosophica 35(1): 89–112.

van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1988. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2(2): 271–291.CrossRef

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F.S. Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef

van Rees, M.A. 1995. Analyzing and evaluating problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 9(2): 343–362.CrossRef

van Rees, M.A. 2001. The diagnostic power of the stages of critical discussion in the analysis and evaluation of problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 15(4): 457–470.CrossRef

van Rees, M.A. 2003. Within pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac. Argumentation 17(4): 461–464.

Walton, D.N. 1984. Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc.

Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Walton, D.N. 1999. Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 13(1): 53–71.CrossRef

Walton, D.N. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Walton, D.N., and F. Macagno. 2010. Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24(3): 283–317.CrossRef

Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Wenzel, J. W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. J. Schuetz, and R. Trapp, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Zarefsky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22(3): 317–330.CrossRef

Titel: Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry
verfasst von: Marcin Lewiński
Mark Aakhus
Publikationsdatum: 01.05.2014
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Argumentation / Ausgabe 2/2014
Print ISSN: 0920-427X
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-8374
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2014

Metaphor as Argument: Rhetorical and Epistemic Advantages of Extended Metaphors

Andrew Aberdein and Ian J. Dove (eds): The Argument of Mathematics (Logic, Epistemology and the Unity of Science, Vol. 30)

John Woods: Errors of Reasoning: Naturalizing the Logic of Inference (Studies in Logic, Vol. 45)

Modeling Corroborative Evidence: Inference to the Best Explanation as Counter–Rebuttal

Corina Andone: Argumentation in Political Interviews: Analyzing and Evaluating Responses to Accusations of Inconsistency. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 2013

Maurice A. Finocchiaro: Meta-argumentation: An Approach to Logic and Argumentation Theory

Premium Partner