Argumentative Discourse across Domains
Notes
ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE ACROSS DOMAINS
Objectives
The objectives of this course are to enable students to:
§ understand the way language is used in various argumentative text genres
§ acquire the basic conceptual tools for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse
§ apply the basic conceptual tools in systematically analysing and evaluating argumentative texts
Contents
The course provides the theoretical and empirical insights that are needed in order to study the use
of argumentation in various communicative domains. In this course students learn about the following
subjects: the identification of differences of opinion and standpoints, the representation of
argumentative structures, the reconstruction of unexpressed arguments, the identification of
argumentative schemes and the evaluation of the quality of argumentation on the basis of a
systematic theory of fallacies.
Week 1
à Introduction to argumentation, Identifying differences of opinion and standpoints (van
Eemeren et al., 2014, Ch. 1; Argumentation, Ch. 1-3)
“Give me an argument”
§ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
§ It needs a standpoint first to give an argument
5 crucial concepts in argumentation theory:
(1) standpoints
(2) unexpressed premises
(3) argument schemes
(4) argument structures
(5) fallacies
Definitions
Proposition:
§ elementary element of the sentence, sentence that has a certain truth value
§ each proposition could be taken as a standpoint but they must not always be -> part of
standpoint
§ e.g. Amsterdam is a beautiful city: BOTH
§ Amsterdam is a beautiful city because it has nice canals: proposition and argument, the nice
canals are an argument for Amsterdam being beautiful
Standpoint:
§ essence of what the person is arguing for
, Argumentative Discourse across Domains
Notes
Week 2
à Unexpressed elements in argumentation (Argumentation, Ch. 4; van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 1992, Ch. 6)
IMPLICIT = UNEXPRESSED
What can language users leave implicit in argumentative discourse? - Standpoints
- Arguments
Why leave such elements implicit?
- these elements are indirectly indicated in the discourse; they are obvious in the discourse - language
users may want to deceive others (you may not want to be criticized)
Why do we need as analysts to reconstruct what is left implicit?
• - for evaluation purposes (unexpressed premises allow the analyst judge correctly the
relationship between standpoint and argument)
• - to hold the protagonist accountable (the analyst knows to what the arguer is committed)
UNEXPRESSED LANGUAGE USE AS EXAMPLE OF INDIRECT LANGUAGE USE
Indirect statement = a verbal act is carried out indirectly by putting forward another statement. Eg: a
request by means of a question.
Indirectness is a special kind of implicitness = language users mean to convey more than they literally
say, and indicate this to the interlocutor. By means of indirect language use, language users
communicate something.
INDIRECT LANGUAGE USE
How do we communicate something indirectly? Grice: by following the Principle of Communication
(maxims of clarity, sincerity, efficiency, relevance).
These rules are always followed, whatever one does with the language (a promise, a threat, an
explanation, etc.). But: these rules mean something else according to the speech act that is being
performed.
, Argumentative Discourse across Domains
Notes
Trait: in the case of an indirect statement we speak of a primary act (pragmatic function) and a
secondary act (literal function)
A: Let’s go to the movie. (proposal)
B: I have to work for an exam. (rejection)
Rejection is the primary act, but not on the basis of its meaning (= assertion = secondary act).
The pragmatic meaning (rejection) is different than the literal meaning (assertion).
Connection with argumentation: by knowing that language users keep to these rules, we interpret what
they say as relevant, sincere, clear and efficient.
A: Shall we invite Maria to join us on the trip? (proposal) B: I think I need to go to bed now. (rejection)
Indirectly, B implies the standpoint that Maria should not join us on the trip. B’s response (literally) does
not connect with A’s question, but we know that B tries to convey something that is relevant (although it
may not seem so), namely a rejection of A’s proposal.
RECONSTRUCTING UNEXPRESSED STANDPOINTS
We infer unexpressed standpoints from the expressed arguments based on logic. Method for
reconstruction: use modus ponens or modus tollens in order to find out which element(s) to add.
UNEXPRESSED STANDPOINTS
RECONSTRUCTING UNEXPRESSED PREMISES
Method for reconstruction:
1. Logic for the logical minimum (modus ponens or modus tollens)
2. Context for the pragmatic optimum
2.1. Co-text
2.2 Institutional/situational knowledge
2.3 Cultural knowledge
Claus likes to yodel, because he comes from Tyrol.
1. Logical minimum: If Claus comes from Tyrol, then he likes to yodel.
2. Pragmatic optimum: Tyrolers like to yodel.
