Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY PDF

Preview

Summary

FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments This page intentionally left blank FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments Frans H. van Eemeren Rob Grootendorst Francisca Snoeck H...

Description

FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY A

Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments

This page intentionally left blank

FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY A

Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments

Frans H. van Eemeren Rob Grootendorst Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

University of Amsterdam J. Anthony Blair University of Windsor Ralph H. Johnson University of Windsor Erik C. W. Krabbe University of Groningen Christian Plantin University of Lumiere Lyon 2

Douglas N. Walton University of Winnipeg Charles A Willard University of Louisville John Woods University of Lethbridge David Zarefsky Northwestern University

�� ���!��n��:up NEW YORK AND LONDON

First Published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers 10 Industrial Avenue Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Transferred to Digital Printing 2009 by Routledge 270 Madison Ave, New York NY I 0016 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Copyright

© 1996, by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

All rights reserved. No part of the book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Fundamentals of argumentation theory: a handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments I Frans

H.

van Eemeren ...

[et al.]. p.

em.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN 0.80 58-1861-8.- ISBN 0-8058-1862-6 (pbk.)

ISBN 978-113-6688-041 (ebk)

1. Persuasion (Rhetoric ). 2. Logic. 3. Reasoning. I. Eemeren, F. H. van. P301.5.P47F86

1996

808-dc20

9 5-53033 CI P

Publisher's Note The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.

CONTENTS

ix

Preface

1

I

Introduction

1 . 1 Argumentation 1 1.2 Argumentation and Logic 5 1 .3 The Study of Argumentation 12

PART I: HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS 2

Analytic, Dialectic, and Rhetoric

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3

The Dialectical Art of Critical Debate The Rhetorical Art of Civic Discourse Roman-Hellenistic Rhetoric

45

33 37 42

Analysis of Fallacies, Controversy, and Discussion

3. 1 3.2 3.3 3.4 4

29

The Analytical Logic of the Syllogism

The Aristotelian Heritage in the Study of Fallacies The Standard Treatment of Fallacies and Beyond Crawshay-Williams' Analysis of Controversy Naess on Clarifying Discussions

83

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's New Rhetoric

4. 1 4.2 4.3 4.4

The Rhetorical Framework Points of Departure

102

119

51

93

98

A Typology of Argumentation Schemes Perspectives

74

56 62

105 v

vi

CONTENTS

5

Toulmin's Model of Argumentation

5. 1 5.2 5.3 5.4

1 29

135

Field-Invariance and Field-Dependency Argumentation Form and Validity Some Applications of the Model Perspectives

154

139 149

PART II: CONTEMPORARY DEVEWPMENTS 6

Informal Logic and Critical Thinking

6. 1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7

Perspectives

1 89

193

Social Science Perspectives on Communication

7.4

Perspectives

From Debate to Argumentation Studies

196

Practical Philosophy and Social and Cultural

203 210

Fallacies and Formal Logic

21 3

Formal Methods in Fallacy Theory The Woods-Walton Approach

236

222

A Dialectical Analysis of Refutation Perspectives

240

238

246

Dialogue Logic and Formal Dialectics

249

Barth's Conception of Logical Validity

The Logical Propaedeutic of the Erlanger School Barth and Krabbe's Systems of Formal Dialectics Perspectives

271

253 263

274

Pragma-Dialectics and Critical Discussion

10. 1 10.2 10.3 10.4 11

183

7. 1 7.2 7.3

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 10

186

Communication and Rhetoric

8. 1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9

166 174

The Main Issues in Informal Logic Critical Thinking

Critique

8

1 63

The (Re)emergence of Informal Logic

A Model for Critical Discussion

280

Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse Fallacies in Resolving Disagreement Perspectives

306

298

288

31 2

Language-Oriented Approaches to Argumentation

11.1 1 1 .2 1 1 .3 1 1 .4

Anscombre and Ducrot's Radical Argumentation Polyphony in Argumentation Discourse Grize's Natural Logic

322

Lo Casio's Argumentative Grammar

329

318

315

vii

CONTENTS

12

Other Significant Developments

12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4

341 345 350

340

Philosophical Approaches Rhetorical Approaches Unguistic Approaches

Argumentation in Special Fields

353

Classified Bibliography

357

References

361

Author Index

397

Subject Index

407

This page intentionally left blank

PREFACE

In the past decades the study of argumentation has become a field of interest in its own right. Several scholarly societies and associations and various .aca­ demic journals are devoted to argumentation. A great number of books and articles concentrate on this subject. It is also the focus of attention at many conferences, symposia, and courses. The growing interest in argumentation is an international phenomenon. It is not restricted to one discipline, being appar­ ent in philosophy, logic, linguistics, discourse analysis, rhetoric, speech commu­ nication, education, psychology, sociology, political science, law, and many other disciplines. Recently, some multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to argumentation have also been developed. Because of the complexity, diversity and rate of developments in the study of argumentation, one might easily lose sight of the ways in which argumentation theory has matured. The authors of this book therefore think that a compre­ hensive survey of the various theoretical contributions is now worthwhile.

damentals

of Argumentation

Theory is intended to

Fun­

serve this purpose. Although

it stands to reason that choices had to be made and that not all contributions could be equally accentuated, it essentially describes the historical works that provide the background to the field of argumentation studies and the contem­ porary developments that make it prosper. All major trends in current research are discussed and all prominent approaches which are (at least partly) acces­ sible in English. The present volume originates in part with vington,

1984),

The Study

and ljark Kruiger, and republished as the Handbook

1987).

of Argumentation (Ir­

jointly authored by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst,

ofArgumentation Theory (Foris,

Because argumentation theory has advanced considerably since the

manuscript for this book was completed

(1980),

it has been apparent for some

ix

X

PREFACE

time that it was being overtaken by new developments. It became clear that a substantially new study would be needed, and it was decided to write

mentals of Argumentation Theory

Funda­

with that idea in mind. The first three authors,

Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, acted as "writers-in-chief." They wrote

Fundamentals

together with their colleagues

Anthony Blair, Ralph Johnson, Erik Krabbe, Christian Plantin, Douglas Walton, Charles Willard, John Woods, and David Zarefsky, all specialists in the field. The resulting book is altogether the authors' joint responsibility. It goes without saying that a comprehensive book such as

Argumentation Theory could

Fundamentals of

hardly be written without the help of a great many

others. Various members of the research group for Argumentation and Dis­ course Analysis of the Institute for Functional Research of Language and Lan­ guage Use of the University of Amsterdam, the Free University of Amsterdam and the State University of Leiden have been helpful in improving the manu­ script. The authors would like to thank Antoine Braet, Petra Boers, Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen, Janne-Maaike Gerlofs, Susanne Gerritsen, Peter Hout­ losser, Agnes van Rees, Maarten van der To!, Erik Viskil, Shi-Xu, and the associ­ ated members of the Erasmus University Rotterdam, Ton van Haaften, Harm Kloosterhuis, and Jose Plug, for their useful suggestions. They also want to thank Bart Garssen, Peter Houtlosser, and Paul Nagtegaal for their technical and bib­ liographical assistance. In addition, the authors were fortunate enough to find a number of their most distinguished colleagues, from various parts of the world, willing to advise them. All of these argumentation scholars read parts of the manuscript; many sug­ gested important corrections and clarifications, some proposed elaborations or additions. Their comments have been crucial in getting the book published in its present form. The authors therefore make a point of emphasizing that their support has been invaluable. As a token of their appreciation, they have listed the names of these generous colleagues.

ACKNOWLEDGM ENT The authors would like to express their gratitude to the following colleagues who have been of help in preparing this book: William van Belle, Catholic University of Leuven Marie-Jeanne Borel, University of Lausanne Dale Brashers, University of Ohio Georg Brutian, National Academy of Sciences Armenia Adelino Cattani, University of Padua Robert Craig, University of Colorado at Boulder Maurice Finocchiaro, University of Nevada Las Vegas

PREFACE

Alec Fisher, University of East Anglia James Freeman, City University of New York Bice Mortara Garavelli, University of Turin Thomas Goodnight, Northwestern University Trudy Govier, Calgary Hans Hansen, Brock University David Hitchcock, McMaster University Hamilton Paul van den Hoven, University of Utrecht Sally Jackson, University of Arizona Scott Jacobs, University of Arizona Henry Johnstone Jr., Pennsylvania State University Manfred Kienpointner, University of Innsbruck Vincenzo Lo Cascio, University of Amsterdam Robert Maier, University of Utrecht Jo Martens, Polytechnic Eindhoven Sebastian McEvoy, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Denis Mieville, University of Neuchatel Wim de Pater, Catholic University of Leuven Robert Pinto, University of Windsor Marc van der Poe!, Catholic University Nijmegen Igno Propper, Free University Amsterdam Peter Jan Schellens, University of Twente Harvey Siegel, University of Miami Tanya Tretyakova, St. Petersburg University lneke Vedder, University of Amsterdam Frank Veltman, University of Amsterdam Barbara Warnick, University of Washington Joseph Wenzel, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Rob Wiehe, Association of Universities in the Netherlands Jaap Wisse, University of Leiden Harald Wohlrapp, University of Hamburg

xi

This page intentionally left blank

With mortals, gold outweighs a thousand arguments. -Medea.

In Euripides,

Medea and other Plays.

Trans. and Intr. by

Philip Vellacott. London, England: Penguin, pp. 46, 966.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1

ARGUME NTATION

Argumentation (or argument) i s familiar t o all o f us. The following three quota­ tions are examples of argumentation:

(a) Mother to daughter: Forget about vacationing all by yourself. No way! When your sister was fourteen, we didn't let her go either. (b) Tom: Of course I'm in favor of heavier punishment for drug addicts. Jim: Why? Tom: Wel l, otherwise the problem will get worse and worse. Jim: How do you mean? Tom: You know, soon enough the rumor spreads that not much is going to happen, even if you get caught, so they'll all have a go at it. (c) Letter to the Editor. Sir, When consideration is being given to a third television channel could not a way be found round the "advertising break" problem by devoting the new channel entirely to advertising? In that way the present commercial channel could be left free from program me breaks (natural or otherwise), thus satisfying those of us who object to these interruptions while those millions who are al leged to prefer "the adverts" will also be made more happy in their viewing. Yours faithfully, E.H. Dare Nobody will have much trouble in identifying such examples as specimens of argumentation as argumentation is present in virtually all our verbal communi­ cation. Both oral and written argumentation are indeed integral parts of our

2

FUNDAMENTALS OF ARGUMENTATION THEORY

daily routines. We all regularly engage in argumentative practices, when we advance arguments in defense of certain assertions or actions and when we react to arguments put forward by others. Argumentation is a

verbal activity,

which is normally conducted in an ordi­

nary language (such as English). A speaker or writer, engaged in argumentation, uses certain words and sentences to state, question, or deny something, to respond to statements, questions or denials, and so on.1 Just as other verbal activities, argumentation may well be accompanied by the use of nonverbal means of communication, such as facial expression and gestures, but not to the extent that the verbal expressions are completely replaced by the nonverbal ones. Without the use of language, there can be no argumentation. Argumentation is a

social

activity, which in principle is directed at other

people.2 Of course, the social nature of argumentation is most clearly evident in a discourse between two or more interlocutors. All the same, even when people are conferring with themselves, contemplating the pros and cons of their own ideas, their conduct is basically social. For as soon as they start weighing up the various considerations, this amounts to an anticipation of an interlocu­ tor's possible reactions, even if these reactions are only their own. Thus, when people put forward their arguments, they attempt to meet the outspoken or tacit reactions of others. Argumentation is an activity of

reason,

which indicates that the arguer has

given some thought to the subject. Putting forward an argument means that the arguer attempts to show that a rational account can be given of his or her position on the matter. This is not to say that emotions cannot play a part in adopting a position, but that these internal motives, which have been assimilated in the discourse, are not directly relevant as such. When people put forward their arguments in argumentation they place their considerations within the realm of reason. In the discourse, argumentation always relates to a particular opinion, or

standpoint,

about a specific subject.3 The need for argumentation arises when

opinions concerning this subject differ or are supposed to differ. By itself, holding an opinion is not enough to initiate argumentation. Arguing makes sense only if there is a listener or reader who entertains doubt about an opinion or has a diverging opinion. Argumentation starts from the presumption, rightly or wrongly, that the standpoint of the arguer is not immediately accepted, but is

controversial. 1For brevity's sake, we shall usually refer to the participants in an argumentation as speaker and listener when, mutatis mutandis, our remarks apply to a writer and a reader as well. 2In this general characterization we neither differentiate between addressing an audience consisting of one person and addressing (perhaps over the heads of those officially addressed) a broader audience consisting of a variety of people, nor do we differentiate between speakers or writers speaking only on behalf of themselves and those acting as representatives of others. 30ther virtual synonyms of the term "standpoint," used by various authors, are view, viewpoint, point of view, claim , thesis, etc.

1. INTRODUCTION

3

A difference of opinion may be completely overt and explicit-it being clear to all that the interlocutor does not share the arguer's standpoint-but in prac­ tice the controversy will often remain covert and implicit. The standpoint itself may also remain obscure. It can vary in firmness, nature, and scope. A stand­ point that is presented as absolute ("It is certain that litmus reacts to acid by changing color") is firmer than a more restrained standpoint ("It is likely that not all top sportsmen take stimulants"). A standpoint pertaining to a factual judgment, a claim that a certain state of affairs obtains ("No such journal exists"), is different in nature from a standpoint referring to a value judgment ("This journal is not very good"). And a standpoint referring to all members of a certain class ("All writers are intelligent") has a wider scope than a standpoint referring to only one member ("Jane Austen is an intelligent writer"). Standpoints, hence differences of opinion, can be about all kinds of subjects, from economics, psychology, and politics to sex, entertainment, and the weather. They can be expressed by affirmative or negative "objective" state­ ments, but also by personal judgments, and even by questions and imperatives. Standpoints of any type might give rise to argumentation. A few examples may illustrate the diversity:

(1)

Litmus reacts to acid by changing color.

(2)

Amsterdam is the capital of the Netherlands.

(3)

If you ask me, not all top sportsmen take stimulants.

(4)

In my opinion Satie's "Prelude de Ia porte heroique du ciel" is superb.

(5)

I think one should help one's fellow men in times of need.

(6) Wouldn't it be nicer if people in academic circles were a little more tolerant? As shown by the examples, a standpoint may be marked as such by the use of

phrases like "in my opinion," "I think," and "if you ask me." In ordinary discourse, however, such indicators are frequently absent. Thus, it is perfectly usual to present a standpoint by a statement consisting simply of the utterance of an unmarked (impersonal) indicative sentence, or even by a question. For an ut­ terance to count as the expression of a standpoint, it is crucial that the person involved may be considered to have taken position for or against a certain proposition about the subject of discourse. Standpoints can only play their part in argumentative discourse if the p...