Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

Some words and expressions used in argumentative discussions and texts often indicate that a particular argumentative move is being made. The use of ‘in my opinion’, ‘to my mind’, ‘the way I see it’ or ‘thus’ or ‘therefore’ may, for example, introduce a standpoint, and the use of ‘because’ or ‘given that’ argumentation. We call words and expressions that may refer to argumentative moves such as putting forward a standpoint or argumentation argumentative indicators . The use of these argumentative indicators is a sign that a particular argumentative move might be in progress, but it does not constitute a decisive pointer. The word ‘therefore’, for instance, can also be used as filler, and, next to an argumentation, the word ‘because’ may introduce an explanation. Nevertheless, depending on the context, the use of these words is sufficient reason to consider whether a standpoint or an argumentation is being introduced. Other argumentative indicators refer to argumentative moves in a similar way.

In order to clarify the meaning of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentative discourse, an ideal model of a critical discussion has been formulated that is aimed at resolving a difference of opinion on the merits (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1984, 2004). This model specifies the dialectical stages that have to be distinguished in resolving a difference of opinion, as well as the verbal moves that serve a constructive purpose in the different stages of the resolution process. The point of departure is that a difference of opinion is resolved only when the parties involved agree whether the controversial standpoint is acceptable or not. This means either that one party must be convinced through the other party’s argumentation that his standpoint is acceptable, or that the other party has to retract his standpoint, because he recognises that his argumentation is unable to withstand the criticism passed on it. Resolving a difference of opinion is not the same thing as settling a dispute. A dispute is settled when the difference of opinion has been ended one way or the other, for example, by means of a vote or because an outsider intervened. However, this does not have to mean that the difference of opinion has actually been resolved. The latter is only the case if a regulated exchange of arguments and criticism occurs and eventually leads to a common agreement about the acceptability or unacceptability of the standpoints under discussion

Because each argumentative discussion or text is based on a dispute with a real or imaginary opponent, it must be clear what the dispute entails in order to be able to adequately judge the discussion or discursive text. Which standpoints do the parties involved take, and what type of dispute is exactly at stake? A pragmadialectical analysis identifies the various elements in an argumentative discussion or text that contribute to the constitution of the dispute, and reconstructs the parts involved in terms of moves in the confrontation stage of a critical discussion. In this chapter, we shall examine which words and expressions are able to fulfil an indicative function for this analysis.

In the opening stage of a critical discussion the parties establish the point of departure for the discussion. Together they determine the procedure they will follow in the discussion: which utterances must be defended by which party in the discussion – who has the burden of proof for what? – and which utterances do not have to be defended but can be used, instead, as starting points in the defence of other utterances under discussion? In order to be able to establish which utterances should be defended in a discussion and which not, it is important to know which words and expressions are indicators of the distribution of the burden of proof, and which words and expressions are indicators of the common starting points. In this chapter we examine indicators of the burden of proof. In chapter 5 indicators of common starting points are examined.

In this chapter we will focus on the moves that can be constituent for another central activity in the opening stage of a critical discussion: the establishment of the material (or substantial) starting points for the discussion. As early as in classical dialectics these starting points played a crucial part, since a dialectic was interpreted as a critical dialogue in which one party, the opponent, tries to refute the standpoint of the other party, the proponent, on the basis of concessions the proponent makes in the course of the dialogue in response to strategic questions of the opponent. The opponent’s aim is to obtain concessions that include a contradiction or constitute a contradiction with the standpoint of the proponent. The proponent’s aim is to answer the opponent’s questions in a constructive way without making concessions the opponent could use to refute the proponent’s standpoint.

Each single or coordinative argumentation is based on an argument scheme that creates a specific justifying relationship between the applied argument or (in the case of coordination) the applied arguments and the standpoint at issue. A central question when evaluating an argumentative discussion or text is whether the argument schemes that the defender of a particular standpoint uses are in fact appropriate and correctly applied. The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory distinguishes, depending on the kind of justifying relationship the argumentation is based on, three (main) types of argumentation, that each have their own argument scheme: argumentation by comparison, causal argumentation, and symptomatic argumentation. To each type of argumentation specific standards of evaluation apply which are tuned to the kind of justifying relationship that occurs in the argumentation. For each of the three argument schemes different critical questions are relevant. Anyone who uses a particular argument scheme takes, in fact, the first step in a dialectical testing procedure that verifies whether the argumentation can withstand relevant forms of criticism. In anticipation of this criticism, the defender of a particular standpoint may already follow up his argumentation with responses to relevant objections. In a critical discussion, the opposition’s responses always relate to the evaluative issues that are relevant to the argument scheme in question.

The complexity of an argumentative speech or text depends on the reactions the speaker or writer responds to, or which he anticipates. If the protagonist of a particular standpoint receives or expects criticism about one or more elements of his argumentation, he will have to bring forward more arguments to meet this criticism. Depending on the nature of the criticism and the manner in which the protagonist tries to defend himself against it, the argumentation will display a different structure.

In the concluding stage of a critical discussion the parties have to establish the result of the discussion. This implies that, together, they need to determine whether the protagonist has conclusively defended his initial standpoint or the antagonist has successfully attacked that standpoint. The purpose of this is to be able to decide who has the right to maintain his initial position at the end of the discussion and who has to retract his initial position.