Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study

239 Pages·2007·2.1 MB·English

by  Frans H. van Eemeren

ARGUMENTATIVE INDICATORS IN DISCOURSE
Argumentation Library
Volume 12
Series Editors
Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam
Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen
John Woods, University of British Columbia
ARGUMENTATIVE
INDICATORS IN
DISCOURSE
A Pragma-Dialectical Study
FRANS H. VAN EEMEREN
Universiteit van Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
PETER HOUTLOSSER
Universiteit van Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
A. FRANCISCA SNOECK HENKEMANS
Universiteit van Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
A C.I.P Catalogue record for this book is available from the library of congress.
ISBN 978-1-4020-6243-8 (HB)
ISBN 978-1-4020-6244-5 (e-book)
Published by Springer,
P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
www.springer.com
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved
© 2007 Springer
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording, or
otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material
supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for
exclusive use by the purchaser of the work
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE ix
1. THE IDENTIFICATION OF ARGUMENTATIVE
INDICATORS 1
1.1 Argumentative moves and argumentative indicators 1
1.2 The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentative discourse 2
1.3 Organisation of this study 5
2. THE IDEAL MODEL OF A CRITICAL DISCUSSION
AS A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9
2.1 Dialectical stages in a critical discussion 9
2.2 Pragmatic characterisation of argumentative moves as speech acts 12
2.3 Dialectical profiles for pragmatic patterns of moves 17
3. INDICATORS OF CONFRONTATION 21
3.1 Dialectical confrontation profiles 21
3.2 Indicators of standpoints 28
3.2.1 Tools for the identification of standpoints 28
3.2.2 Several kinds of propositional attitude indicating
expressions and force modifying expressions 30
3.3 Indicators of disputes 45
3.3.1 Doubt as an indicator of a single non-mixed dispute 45
3.3.2 Indicators of a mixed dispute 53
3.3.3 Indicators of a qualitative multiple dispute 57
4. INDICATORS OF THE DISTRIBUTION
OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF 63
4.1 The distribution of the burden of proof 63
4.2 Dialectical profiles for establishing the burden of proof 63
4.3 Analysing the distribution of the burden of proof 72
4.3.1 Indicators of a challenge to defend a standpoint 72
4.3.2 Indicators of the acceptance of a one-sided burden of proof 78
4.3.3 Indicators of refusing a one-sided burden of proof 82
4.3.4 Indicators of sequence issues in a two-sided burden of proof 84
v
vi TABLE OF CONTENTS
5. INDICATORS OF STARTING POINTS FOR THE DISCUSSION 89
5.1 The identification of starting points 89
5.2 Dialectical profile for establishing a starting point 90
5.3 The analysis of establishing starting points 92
5.3.1 Indicators of a proposal to accept a proposition
as a starting point 92
5.3.2 Indicators of responses to a proposal to accept a
proposition as a starting point 120
6. INDICATORS OF ARGUMENT SCHEMES 137
6.1 The use of argument schemes in a critical discussion 137
6.2 Clues for analogy argumentation 138
6.2.1 Dialectical profile for the analogy relationship 138
6.2.2 Clues in the presentation of argumentation by comparison 141
6.2.3 Indications in criticism of argumentation by comparison 149
6.2.4 Indications in the follow-up of argumentation
by comparison 152
6.3 Indications for symptomatic argumentation 154
6.3.1 Dialectical profile for the symptomatic relationship 154
6.3.2 Indications in the presentation of symptomatic
argumentation 155
6.3.3 Clues in criticism of symptomatic argumentation 161
6.3.4 Clues in the follow-up of symptomatic argumentation 162
6.4 Indications for causal argumentation 164
6.4.1 Dialectical profile for the causal relationship 164
6.4.2 Clues in the presentation of causal argumentation 166
6.4.3 Clues in criticism of causal argumentation 177
6.4.4 Clues in the follow-up of causal argumentation 186
6.5 Some complications 188
7. INDICATORS OF THE ARGUMENTATION STRUCTURE 193
7.1 Dialectical profiles for different types of complex argumentation 193
7.2 Indications in the verbal presentation of arguments 194
7.2.1 Univocal indications for a subordinative relationship 194
7.2.2 Non-univocal indications for subordinative argumentation 197
7.2.3 Univocal indications for multiplicity 200
7.2.4 Non-univocal indications for multiple argumentation 201
7.2.5 Univocal indications for a coordinative relationship 210
7.2.6 Non-univocal indications for cumulatively
coordinative argumentation 211
7.2.7 Non-univocal indications for complementary
coordinative argumentation 216
7.3 Clues for the argumentation structure in criticism passed
on arguments 219
7.4 Some complications 221
8. INDICATORS OF THE CONCLUSION OF A DISCUSSION 223
8.1 Establishing the result of the discussion 223
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
8.2 Dialectical profile of how the result of the
discussion is established 223
8.3 The protagonist maintains or withdraws his standpoint 226
8.4 The antagonist maintains or withdraws his doubt 229
REFERENCES 231
PREFACE
Argumentative Indicators in Discourse: A Pragma-Dialectical Study is the result of a
research project aimed at identifying and analysing words and expressions that are of
special significance to the analysis of argumentative discourse in discussions and texts.
In the project, we systematically connected pragmatic insights in the linguistic charac-
teristics of argumentative language use and dialectical insights in the argumentative
moves that are instrumental in resolving differences of opinion by testing the accept-
ability of the standpoints at issue in a critical discussion.
Initially, the project concentrated on argumentative indicators in Dutch. It was
subsidised by the Vlaams-Nederlands Comité voor Nederlandse Taal en Cultuur
(Flemish-Dutch Committee for Dutch Language and Culture) of The Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research, NWO, dossier 205-41-012, and carried out at
the University of Amsterdam in the Instituut voor Functioneel Onderzoek van Taal
en Taalgebruik (Institute for Functional Research of Language and Language Use).
After the completion of the Dutch study, we continued the project in the Instituut
voor Cultuuranalyse (Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis, ASCA) as part of the
research programme ‘A rgumentation in discourse’. In this new phase of the project,
we concentrated on translating our Dutch study of argumentative indicators into Eng-
lish, replacing Dutch indicators by English indicators in the process. This meant that
the set-up of the project had to be slightly modified. Regretfully, one of the initiators
of the project, our dear colleague Rob G rootendorst, had passed away in 2000, so that
we had to carry on without his expert advice. Fortunately, in the English part of the
project, we were greatly helped by very helpful comments on the manuscript by Man-
fred Kienpointner and by the assistance of Reinier Zwartjes, translator, and our PhD
student Bilal Amjarso. We thank all three of them very much!
Amsterdam, 19 January 2007
Frans H. van Eemeren Department of Speech Communication,
Peter Houtlosser Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans Universiteit van Amsterdam
ix
CHAPTER 1
THE IDENTIFICATION OF ARGUMENTATIVE
INDICATORS
1.1 ARGUMENTATIVE MOVES AND ARGUMENTATIVE
INDICATORS
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 argu-
mentative moves in a similar way.
Anyone who wishes to critically evaluate an argumentative discussion or text
can only do so properly after a careful analysis of the discourse, in order to ensure
that the judgment is based on a correct understanding of the argumentative proc-
ess. Consequently, the analyst of an argumentative discussion or text needs solid
grounds to establish what argumentative moves are made in the discourse, and
what these moves imply. We, and others, have previously noted in textbooks on
the analysis and evaluation of discussions and texts that indicators can play a use-
ful role in such cases.1 Argumentative indicators constitute keystones in the dis-
course, facilitating the identification and reconstruction of argumentative moves
that are made in argumentative discussions and texts.
Obviously, when justifying an analysis one cannot refer to argumentative indi-
cators until specific words and expressions have been identified as such. For this
reason, it makes sense to have an overview that is as comprehensive as possible
of the words and expressions that can function as argumentative indicators in a
particular language. Naturally, such an overview is only useful for a justification
if it is clear to which argumentative moves exactly the different indicators could
pertain. A rgumentative I ndicators in Discourse is a study in which we try to answer
this need. It is impossible to comprehensively list all argumentative indicators that
1 See, for example, van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1996) and van Eemeren, G rootendorst
and Snoeck Henkemans (2002).
1