Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective PDF
Preview Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
ARGUMENTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND FALLACIES A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective ARGUMENTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND FALLACIES A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective Frans H. van Eemeren Rob Grootendorst University of Amsterdam First published 1992 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Transferred to Digital Printing 2009 by Routledge Copyright © 1992 Taylor & Francis All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. ISBN: 9781138144552 (hbk) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Eemeren, F. H. van. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective / Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8058-1069-2 (C) 1. Persuasion (Rhetoric) 2. Fallacies (Logic) 3. Speech acts (Linguistics) 4. Communication–Philosophy. I. Grootendorst, Rob. II. Title. P301.5.P47E33 1992 401′.41–dc20 91–40241 CIP 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 Preface PART I ARGUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION 1 The Pragma-Dialectical Approach Studies of Argumentation Components of a Research Program Pragma-Dialectical Starting Points Overview of the Book 2 Standpoints and Differences of Opinion Resolving Differences of Opinion Positive and Negative Standpoints Simple and Complex Disputes The Verbal Presentation of Standpoints and Doubt 3 Argumentation as a Complex Speech Act Communicative and Interactional Aspects Elementary and Complex Speech Acts Identity and Correctness Conditions for Argumentation 4 Speech Acts in a Critical Discussion Stages in the Resolution of a Dispute Distribution of Speech Acts over the Dialectical Stages Argumentative Discourse as Critical Discussion 5 Implicit and Indirect Speech Acts Implicit Speech Acts in Argumentative Discourse Communication Rules and Indirect Speech Acts Conventionalization of Indirect Speech Acts 6 Unexpressed Premises in Argumentative Discourse Analysis at the Pragmatic and the Logical Level Unexpressed Premises as Indirect Speech Acts The Role of the Context in Determining the Pragmatic Optimum The Role of Logic in Making Unexpressed Premises Explicit 7 Complex Argumentation Structures Multiple Argumentation Coordinatively Compound Argumentation Subordinatively Compound Argumentation Complex Argumentation and Unexpressed Premises PART II COMMUNICATION AND FALLACIES 8 Analyzing and Evaluating Argumentative Discourse Components of an Analytic Overview Argumentation Schemes as Dialectical Tools Fallacies as Violations of Discussion Rules 9 Fallacies in the Confrontation Advancing Standpoints and Doubt Putting Pressure on the Opponent Attacking the Opponent Personally Complications Regarding the Confrontation 10 Fallacies in the Distribution of Discussion Roles Being Obliged to Defend a Standpoint Evading the Burden of Proof Shifting the Burden of Proof Complications Regarding Discussion Roles 11 Fallacies in Representing a Standpoint Attacking Standpoints Imputing a Fictitious Standpoint to the Opponent Distorting the Opponent’s Standpoint Complications Regarding the Representation of Standpoints 12 Fallacies in Choosing the Means of Defense Choosing the Means to Defend a Standpoint Playing on the Audiences Emotions Parading One’s own Qualities Complications Regarding the Means of Defense 13 Fallacies in Dealing With Unexpressed Premises Making Explicit what has been Left Unexpressed Magnifying an Unexpressed Premise Denying an Unexpressed Premise Complications Regarding Unexpressed Premises 14 Fallacies in Utilizing Starting Points Dealing With Starting Points Falsely Presenting a Premise as a Common Starting Point Denying a Premise Representing an Accepted Starting Point Complications Regarding Starting Points 15 Fallacies in Utilizing Argumentation Schemes Dealing With Argumentation Schemes Relying on an Inappropriate Argumentation Scheme Using an Appropriate Argumentation Scheme Incorrectly Complications Regarding Argumentation Schemes 16 Fallacies in Utilizing Logical Argument Forms Dealing With Logical Argument Forms Confusing Necessary and Sufficient Conditions Confusing the Properties of Parts and Wholes Complications Regarding Logical Argument Forms 17 Fallacies in Concluding the Discussion Establishing the Result of a Discussion Making an Absolute of the Success of the Defense Making an Absolute of the Failure of the Defense Complications Regarding the Conclusion of the Discussion 18 Fallacies in Usage Presenting and Interpreting Argumentative Discourse Misusing Unclearness Misusing Ambiguity Complications Regarding Usage 19 Conclusion Rules for Critical Discussion Violations of Rules for Critical Discussion Traditional Fallacies as Violations of Rules for Critical Discussion Advantages of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach Epilogue References Author Index Subject Index Preface We could not agree more with Gilbert Harman (1986) that there is a difference in category between “rules of inference” and “rules of implication.” Reasoned change in view should not be conflated with logical proof of a conclusion. In our opinion, the dissociation from logic should even be carried one step further. If it is argumentative inference that we are interested in, reasoned change is to be put in the context of communication where one party attempts to convince the other party of the acceptability of a standpoint. This does not mean that logic has no part to play in the study of argumentation. A difference of opinion can only be resolved if the argumentative discourse complies with a variety of norms for critical discussion. Logical validity has its own proper place among the multifarious norms incorporated in the “rules for critical discussion.” In Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, a critical discussion is conceived of as an interactional procedure aimed at resolving a difference of opinion through a regular exchange of speech acts. The book provides an outlook on a theoretical framework for analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse as a critical discussion. Particular attention is paid to the things that can go wrong in the various stages of the critical discussion. It is shown that the verbal moves that are traditionally known as fallacies can be regarded as specific violations of the rules for critical discussion. Our general aim in this book is to elucidate, on behalf of colleagues and interested students, our own pragma-dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, which brings together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. Although we frequently refer to the literature, at this stage, we refrain from making detailed comparisons with other approaches. Such contrasting reviews simply have to wait. The same goes for expounding on further elaborations and
Description:The list of books you might like
