Argumentation, information, and interaction: Studies in face-to-face interactive argumentation under differing turn-taking conditions (Gothenburg monographs in linguistics)

231 Pages·1989·3.45 MB·English

by  Richard Hirsch

Gothenburg Monographs in Linguistics 7

ARGUMENTATION, INFORMATION, AND
INTERACTION

Studies in Face-to-face Interactive Argumentation
under Differing Turn-taking Conditions

Doctoral Dissertation

by

RICHARD HIRSCH

Department of Linguistics
University of Göteborg
1989
Instructions concerning the reading and use of the thesis text

The doctoral dissertation contained in the present electronic form was published in a limited
edition in the fall of 1989 by the Department of Linguistics at Göteborg University.

Hirsch, Richard (1989) Argumentation, Information, and Interaction: Studies in Face-to-face
Interactive Argumentation Under Differing Turn-taking Conditions. Gothenburg
Monographs in Linguistics 7, Department of Linguistics, University of Göteborg.

Although the thesis first appeared in 1989, I believe that the basic theoretical claims and
empirical findings are still valid and, in fact, still rather under-researched. If I were to revise
or rewrite the thesis, I would attempt to tone down the dominant information processing
metaphor and go into greater depth and detail concerning the interdependence of the verbal
and non-verbal aspects of the interactive argumentation.

When approaching the text for the first time, I suggest first reading the summary which gives
a good overview of the structure of the argument and a general outline of the results of the
research presented in the thesis.

The pagination of the on-line version of the thesis text differs from the pagination of the
printed version. For citation or quotation purposes send me <[email protected]> the text
to be cited or quoted and I will reply with the pagination details in the printed version of the
text (available at certain university libraries).

Readers wanting to obtain a paperback hardcopy version of the text should address their
requests to the Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University, Box 200, SE-405 30
Göteborg, Sweden.

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements vi

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 3
1.1 Models of Argumentation 3
1.1.1 Demonstrative Argumentation 4
1.1.2 Non-demonstrative Argumentation 4
1.1.3 Rhetorical Argumentation 4
1.1.4 Dialectical Argumentation 6
1.2 Argumentation as Problem Solving 6
1.3 Relevant Models of Spoken Interaction 8
1.3.1 The Conversational Analysis Model 10
1.3.2 A Language Game Model 11
1.3.3 The Activity Language Model 11
1.3.4 The Information Processing System Model:
Basic Assumptions 12
1.4 Spoken Interaction and Body Movement 15

Chapter 2: Argumentation and Information Processing 18
2.1 Information 18
2.2 Information Processing 19
2.2.1 Primary and Secondary Processing 19
2.2.2 Problem Solving Processing and Production
Systems 20
2.2.3 Relevance and Penetrance 22
2.3 Intrasubjective and Intersubjective Processing 23
2.3.1 Processing Operations or Methods 24
2.3.2 Control Factors of the Operating System 24
2.3.3 Turn-taking Conditions 25
2.3.4 Turns, Roles, Rights, and Obligations 26
2.3.5 Turns and Control Actions 27
2.4 Summary 28

Chapter 3: Argumentation and Arguments 30
3.1 Justification and Explanation 30
3.2 Arguments 32
3.2.1 Examination of Antecedents 32
3.2.2 Examination of Consequences 33
3.2.3 Examination of Alternatives 33
3.2.4 Examination of Analogs 34
3.2.5 Examination of Authorization 34
3.2.6 Examination of Background and Values 35
3.2.7 Examination of Personal Background
and Feelings and Emotions 36
3.3 Method of Example and Counterexample 36
iii
3.4 Logic and Argumentation 37
3.5 Summary 40

Chapter 4: Development of Information 42
4.1 Expressions 42
4.2 Discourse Operations 49
4.2.1 Logical Operations 49
4.2.2 Semantic Operations: Vocal Verbal 52
4.2.3 Semantic Operations: Nonvocal 60
4.3 Summary 64

Chapter 5: Courses of Development 66
5.1 Thematic Development 67
5.2 Course of Development 67
5.3 Course of Development and Body Movements 75
5.4 Information and Body Movements: A Conjecture 75
5.5 Types of Courses of Development 76
5.6 Summary and Discussion 83

Chapter 6: Data and Methodology 86
6.1 Turn-taking and Development of Information 86
6.1.1 Mechanistic Turn-taking: The Television
Debate 86
6.1.2 Non-mechanistic Turn-taking: The Television
Interview 87
6.1.3 Organic Turn-taking: The Conversational
Discussion 87
6.2 Methodology 88
6.2.1 Selection of Data 88
6.2.2 Presentation of the Data 89
6.2.3 Operationalization 92
6.2.4 Description: Identification and Coding
Procedure 92
6.2.5 Reliability 96
6.2.6 Representation and Interpretation 96
6.3 Summary 98

Chapter 7: Mechanistic Turn-Taking: The Television Debate 100
7.1 Control Factors 100
7.1.1 Description of the Situation 100
7.1.2 Goals of the Activity 102
7.1.3 Roles 103
7.1.4 Turn-taking Conditions 104
7.2 Turn-taking and Courses of Development 108
7.3 Course of Development and Body Movement 121
7.4 Expressions: Functions and Multifunctionality 123
7.4.1 Head Nod/s and Headshake/s: Functions 124

7.4.2 Feedback: Interindividual and Intraindividual 126

7.5 Summary 127
iv
Chapter 8: Non-Mechanistic Turn-Taking: The Television
Interview 130
8.1 Control Factors 130
8.1.1 Description of the Situation 130
8.1.2 Goals of the Activity 131
8.1.3 Roles 132
8.1.4 Turn-taking Conditions 132
8.2 Turn-taking and Courses of Development 133
8.3 Course of Development and Body Movement 162
8.4 Expressions: Functions and Multifunctionality 164
8.4.1 Head Nod/s and Headshake/s: Functions 164
8.4.2 Feedback: Interindividual and Intraindividual 168
8.5 Summary 169

Chapter 9: Organic Turn-Taking: The Conversational
Discussion 172
9.1 Control Factors 172
9.1.1 Description of the Situation 172
9.1.2 Goals of the Activity 173
9.1.3 Roles 173
9.1.4 Turn-taking Conditions 174
9.2 Turn-taking and Courses of Development 175
9.3 Projective and Evaluative Development 176
9.4 Course of Development and Body Movement 190
9.5 Expressions: Functions and Multifunctionality 192
9.5.1 Head Nod/s and Headshake/s: Functions 192
9.5.2 Feedback: Interindividual and Intraindividual 193
9.6 Summary 194

Chapter 10: Conclusions, Discussion, Perspectives 199
10.1 Conclusions 199
10.2 The Television Debate, Television Interview, and
Conversational Discussion as Types of Informa-
tion Processing Systems 204
10.3 Discussion 208
10.3.1 Spoken Interaction and Body Movement 208
10.3.2 Models of Spoken Interaction 208
10.3.3 Models of Argumentation 210
10.4 Methodology revisited 211
10.5 Perspectives for Further Research 213

Bibliography 214

Appendix: Some Information Processing Concepts 222

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This monograph is a minimally revised version of my doctoral thesis which was presented
and defended on June 10. 1989 at the University of Göteborg. The changes that have been
undertaken have been basically cosmetic. The substance is fundamentally the same.
The work and study that have lead up to this thesis have been in progress for over
twenty years at six universities in four different countries. It is therefore impossible to
remember and acknowledge all those who have influenced my thinking during this period. If
by chance any of my former teachers and mentors should happen to read this thesis and
remember me as their student they should hereby be acknowledged and thanked. This goes
especially for Edelgard Weber who back in the middle of the sixties introduced me to Kleist's
little essay 'Über die Allmähliche Verfertigung der Gedanken beim Reden'.
As for the thesis itself - it is, as are most books, written to be read. The thesis is,
however, also very much a book that has been read to be written. Without the generous
efforts of many critical readers this thesis would have perhaps never seen the light of day.
The principle reader of the thesis in many different shapes and sizes over a span of almost a
decade has been my supervisor Jens Allwood. His influence on the form and substance of the
thesis and his impact on my thinking in general are obvious in many places in the thesis.
Next on the list of readers is Elisabeth Ahlsén who has been my co-supervisor in the final
stages of the preparation of the thesis. She has been highly instrumental in helping me to get
what I had to say in the proper order. Sven Strömqvist and Lars-Gunnar Andersson also read
the thesis in manuscript and gave me many valuable comments and criticisms. Joakim Nivre,
besides reading and giving valuable comments on the manuscript, helped immeasurably by
checking the transcriptions of the examples against the video recorded data. In addition to
this team of principle readers and commentators, the participants in the work-in-progress
seminars have made many valuable contributions to the formation of my thoughts during
discussions of preliminary forms of parts of the thesis. None of these readers should, of
course, in any way be held responsible for what the writer of the thesis has made of all these
helpful suggestions and comments.
Others who have been instrumental in the production of the thesis have been
Christina Andersson who helped with the transcription of the video recorded data and Tore
Hellberg who put the manuscript into book form. Kathrine Patterson contributed the
illustrations in chapter 4. Linda Schenck proof-read the English translations of the examples
presented in the thesis. Åke Sander initiated me in the secrets and wonders of word-process-
ing print-outs. To all of these readers, commentators, and assistants I want to extend a
heartfelt word of gratitude.
A special word of thanks goes to Camilla Lothigius, who made the illustrations in
chapters 7, 8, and 9, and my daughter Sara, without whom not, for putting up with an absent
father during all the summer holidays, weekends, and long nights that have gone into the
vi
writing of the thesis. Finally a word of acknowledgement to my parents; my mother for early
on encouraging my interest in language in general and my father for arousing my interest in
the analysis of argumentation in particular.

Richard Hirsch

vii
Dialectic is at the same time an art of examination; for neither is the art of examination of
the same nature as geometry, but it is an art which a man could possess even without any
scientific knowledge. ...the art of examination is not knowledge of any definite subject, and it
therefore follows that it deals with every subject; for all the arts employ also certain common
principles. Accordingly, everyone, including the unscientific, makes some kind of use of
dialectic and the art of examination; for all, up to a certain point, attempt to test those who
profess knowledge.

Aristotle On Sophistical Refutations, XI

INTRODUCTION

This thesis is a study of argumentation in situations of face-to-face spoken interaction. The
situations analyzed consist of a formal television debate, a semi-formal television interview,
and an informal conversational discussion. The investigation is based on an analysis of video
recordings of the three situations.
The formal television debate and television interview were broadcast in Swedish
television just prior to the national referendum on nuclear energy in March 1980. There were
three policy lines in the referendum; Line I, which was clearly for the use of nuclear energy,
Line III, which was clearly against nuclear energy, and Line II, which was somewhere in
between.
The television debate was the only televised face-to-face confrontation between the
policy lines during the referendum campaign. Prior to the television debate representatives
from each of the policy lines were interviewed by a team of television reporters. The
interview of the representatives for Line I has been selected for analysis in the thesis.
The conversational discussion was video-recorded in 1980 in connection with a
research project investigating cultural aspects of perspectives on natural resources (cf.
Allwood 1981) which was conducted at the Department of Linguistics at the University of
Göteborg. The discussion was held between non-specialist adolescents on the topic of the
possibility of combining nature and technology.
The three situations of argumentation constitute face-to-face interactive cases of what
I will refer to as everyday argumentation. Everyday argumentation refers to argumentation
concerning practical issues in law, politics, morals, economics, private and family affairs,
medicine, the arts and sciences, etc., in other words, all types of argumentation except strictly
theoretical logical or mathematical proofs or demonstrations.
The thesis is basically an attempt to answer the question of what people are doing in
face-to-face interactive argumentation based on an analysis of examples selected from the
three specific cases of the television debate, the television interview, and the conversational
discussion. The answer proposed is that face-to-face interactive argumentation can be view-
ed as a type of collective information processing activity involving vocal and nonvocal
information in search of a solution to a problem or an answer to a question. The problem
1
solving or answer seeking activity is carried out interactively according to the turn-taking
conditions that obtain for the different occasions of argumentation.

Overview of the Thesis

The thesis consists of two parts. Part one is devoted to a presentation of a general
theoretical model of interactive argumentation as collective information processing problem
solving. Chapter 1 contains an overview of the general theoretical background for the thesis.
The remaining chapters of part one contain a presentation of the particular information
processing system model for interactive argumentation which will be used for the analysis of
the empirical data in part two. A presentation of the information processing system model for
problem solving is found in chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains a description of high level action
plans in the problem solving that guide the search for a solution or an answer according to
certain heuristic methods that help to reduce the range of interesting possibilities that may be
profitably explored. Chapter 4 is devoted to explicating the logical and semantic operations
that are applied in the projection and evaluation of prospective solutions or answers in the
search activity. In chapter 5 it is shown how a solution of a problem or an answer to a
question may involve solving subsidiary problems or answering subsidiary questions. This
leads to the development of information in hierarchical recursively structured sets of logical
and semantic operations referred to as courses of development. Chapter 5 contains an in-
depth analysis of the internal hierarchical recursive structure of courses of development
which are effected by a combination of vocal and nonvocal means in interactive face-to-face
argumentation.
Part two is devoted to empirical studies of interactive argumentation that exemplify
and substantiate the theoretical claims in part one. Chapter 6 contains a discussion of the data
and the methodology used in the empirical studies. Chapters 7, 8, and 9 consist of studies of
selected examples from the television debate, the television interview, and the conversational
discussion, respectively. Chapter 10 closes the thesis with a discussion of the main
conclusions and findings and a comparison of the information processing problem solving
model with other current theories of spoken interaction and argumentation.
In this thesis I try to say something general but at the same time non-trivial about how
information is developed in interactive argumentation. The presentation and discussion of the
data in the thesis should be viewed as a part of a long-range project. The thesis constitutes
the first major attempt at presenting an account of how vocal and nonvocal information work
in combination in interactive argumentation. The account is primarily descriptive, although
some tentative explanatory hypotheses are offered for the descriptive categories and
generalizations.
The descriptive labels used are developed with an aim of creating good flexible and
general terms to describe the phenomena encountered in the study of argumentation. An
attempt has been made at retaining the common sense basis of the terms to as great an extent
as possible. This hopefully enhances their potential for explanation and understanding.
Basically the whole thesis is an attempt to account for an intuitively perceived
analogy between the functioning of an information processing system in terms of a recursive
problem solving procedure and the vocal and nonvocal activity in situations of face-to-face
interactive argumentation.
2
CHAPTER ONE

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter contains a general overview of the theoretical foundations upon which the thesis
rests. The chapter begins with a presentation and discussion of models of argumentation that
have been proposed in the theoretical literature. This is followed by a presentation of the
basic assumptions of relevant models of spoken interaction that will be used as a basis for
comparison and discussion in the analysis of face-to-face interactive argumentation. The
chapter closes with a presentation of the basic assumptions of the information processing
framework adapted in the thesis and a discussion of previous studies of the relationship
between body movement and speech.

1.1 Models of Argumentation

Argumentation is a broad topic. It covers both written and spoken modes of communication
and has been the subject of interest and study in philosophy and rhetoric in both western and
eastern traditions since very early times. There are four basic types of models of
argumentation that have been proposed. These may be referred to as 1) demonstrative
argumentation, 2) non-demonstrative argumentation, 3) rhetorical argumentation, and 4) dia-
lectical argumentation. These types of argumentation are related conceptually in terms of
types and subtypes as illustrated in figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1
Argumentation
Demonstrative Non-demonstrative

Dialectical Rhetorical

1.1.1 Demonstrative Argumentation
3