Aac Special Issue

8/3/2019 Aac Special Issue

1/28

THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE

SP E C I A L IS S U E : CU R R E N T R E S E A R C H I N

P R A G M A- D I A L E C T I C S

Dear reader,

The aim of this special issue of theAmsterdam Argumentation Chronicleis to provide you with an overview of current research in pragma-dialectics by members and associates of the research programmeArgumentation in Discourse. We hope that you will appreciate receivingthis overview and that it will lead to interesting discussions, not onlyamong the contributors, but also between them and other argumentationscholars and students. We therefore invite all of you in particular ourstudents to contact the researchers whose projects are of specialinterest to you if you have any questions or suggestions.

With kind regards,

Frans van Eemeren

Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric

Apr i l 2007


2/28

&XUUHQWUHVHDUFKLQSUDJPDGLDOHFWLFV

,QWKLVLVVXH

The Persuasiveness of addressing anticipated countermoves 3

Bilal Amjarso

Persuasive effects of strategic maneuvering in public political debates 4

Corina Andone

Irreconcilable truths 5

Merel Boers

Sources on Early Rhetoric 6

Jeroen Bons

Strategic maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse 7

Frans van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser

Persuasiveness and local effects Frans van Eemeren, Bert Meuffels & Bart Garssen

Teleological-evaluative argumentation in the justification of judicial decisions 10

Eveline Feteris

The analysis of argumentation supporting a choice 11

Ingeborg van der Geest

Argument form and rhetorical effect 12

Henrike Jansen

Reconstruction of interpretative argumentation in legal decisions 13

Harm Kloosterhuis

Reasonableness conditions for strategic manoeuvring in argumentative confrontations 14

Jan Albert van Laar

Argumentative activity types and conditions of reasonableness for strategic manoeuvring 15

Marcin Lewinski

The role of third party in discourses that are in deep disagreement 17

Vesel Memedi

Strategic Manoeuvering in the context of public political confrontations 18

Dima Mohammed

Manoeuvring strategically with quotations 20

Marian Pijnenburg

The analysis and evaluation of discussions in the legislative process 21

Jos Plug

Strategic maneuvering with language 22

Leah Polcar

Dissociation 23Agns van Rees

Stylistic characteristics of strategic manoeuvring 24

Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

Stylistic characteristics of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative confrontations 25

Yvon Tonnard

Qualification of standpoints and burden of proof 26

Assimakis Tseronis

Reasonableness and persuasiveness of argumentation 28

Jean Wagemans


3/28

7KH3HUVXDVLYHQHVVRI$GGUHVVLQJ$QWLFLSDWHG&RXQWHUPRYHV $Q$QDO\WLFDODQG(PSLULFDO6WXG\RID)RUPRI6WUDWHJLF0DQRHXYULQJ

In this study Bilal Amjarso aims to explain, with thehelp of the concept of strategic manoeuvring, howaddressing anticipated countermoves functions as astrategic manoeuvre aimed at persuading anotherparty.

First, he identifies the object of his study,addressing anticipated countermoves, by analysingexamples taken from everyday and institutional,spoken and written, argumentative discourse. Theoccurrence of this technique in argumentative

contexts where an arguer aims to persuade anaudience to accept his standpoint prompts thequestion of how the concept of strategicmanoeuvring helps to explain the persuasiveness ofaddressing anticipated countermoves.

In the first part of the study Amjarsoprovides an account of the literature on thepersuasiveness of addressing anticipatedcountermoves. First, he investigates the study ofaddressing anticipated countermoves in rhetoric,namely as a form of prolepsis. Then, he examinespersuasion researchers study of addressinganticipated countermoves in terms of message-

sidedness that is manifested in two forms that differsignificantly in persuasiveness: two-sided non-refutational and two-sided refutational.

In the second part, Amjarso outlines atheoretical framework for the study of addressinganticipated countermoves based on the integratedpragma-dialectical theory. He starts this part bydescribing the main components of the pragma-dialectical theory developed by van Eemeren andGrootendorst and extended by van Eemeren andHoutlosser. The application of the integratedpragma-dialectical theory proceeds through twostages. First, the ways in which the antagonist in a

critical discussion can attack the protagonistsstandpoint or argument constitute a profile of thecountermoves that an arguer may anticipate fromthe other party in an implicit discussion. Second,the options that the protagonist has for invalidatingthe antagonists countermoves form a profile of thevarious ways in which the arguer can address thecountermove he has anticipated. In specifying theways of addressing an anticipated countermove,Amjarso also makes use of Snoeck Henkemans(1992, 1995) studies in which she distinguishesbetween several ways of acknowledging and


refuting counterarguments against ones standpointor argument. Amjarso concludes this part byarguing that the forms of addressing anticipatedcountermoves that he has identified can bepersuasive insofar as they help the arguer topresent his position as being conclusively defended

against the countermove.The third part is devoted to the empiricalinvestigation of the persuasiveness of addressinganticipated countermoves in everyday discourse.Amjarso uses the conclusions drawn in the secondpart regarding the potential persuasiveness of thedifferent forms of addressing anticipatedcountermoves as hypotheses for his experiments.These hypotheses are: h1) mentioning and thenrefuting an anticipated countermove is morepersuasive than mentioning only argumentssupporting ones standpoint, h2) mentioning andthen refuting a countermove is more persuasive

than simply mentioning it, h3) refuting thecountermove mentioned is more persuasive thandenying or doubting it. Amjarso concludes theempirical part by discussing to which extent thesefindings confirm the predictions made in thesecond part about the persuasiveness of thisstrategic manoeuvre.

With this analytical and empirical study,Amjarso hopes to find empirical evidence for apragma-dialectically inspired view ofpersuasiveness as strategic manoeuvring in whichthe arguer successfullypresents his position asconclusively defended.

%\%LODO$PMDUVR

EDPMDUVR#XYDQO


4/28

3HUVXDVLYH(IIHFWVRI6WUDWHJLF0DQHXYHULQJLQ3X EOLF3ROLWLFDO'HEDWHV

In her dissertation, Corina Andone is concerned withthe study of cases when an inconsistency is pointedout in someones position. She refers to such cases aaccusations of inconsistency in which the accusercharges the accused with being committed to both Aand A with the aim of securing from the accused aresponse to the charge raised.

In order to give a theoretical account of suchinstances and to analyse their persuasive effects,

Andone divides her thesis into a theoretical part andan empirical part.

In the theoretical part, Andone gives aconceptual analysis of accusations of inconsistencyfrom a speech act perspective. First, she argues whyit is necessary to give an illocutionary treatment ofaccusations of inconsistency. Then, she describes thclass of assertives to which such accusations can berelated. Finally, she gives an account of the identityconditions and the correctness conditions thatcharacterize an accusation of inconsistency. Accusinsomeone of an inconsistency may amount either tocharging someone with being inconsistent in his

words or with an inconsistency between his wordsand his actions. The two cases are captured in oneaccount of accusations of inconsistency andaccounted for in the felicity conditions of the speechact of accusation of inconsistency. Andone explainswhy the conditions are necessary and sufficient andwhat further claims can be made on the basis ofthese conditions.

Second, Andone treats perlocutionary effectsof the speech act of accusation of inconsistencystarting from four distinctions proposed by vanEemeren and Grootendorst (1984): (a) between

consequences that occur accidentally and effectsthat are intended by the speaker, (b) betweeneffects brought about on the basis of theunderstanding of the illocutionary act and effectswhere that is not the case, (c) between effectsbrought about by way of a rational decision by thelistener and effects that do not involve rational

decision-making and (d) between the inherentperlocutionary effect of acceptance and consecutive


consequences. These starting points allow Andone toclarify what counts as perlocutionary effects, howthey are brought about and the roles of the speakerand of the hearer when perlocutionary effectsoccur. Next, she accounts for the perlocutionaryeffect of accusations in general in order to suggestperlocutionary effects for accusations ofinconsistency in the context of an argumentativeinteraction. Given the ideal model of a criticaldiscussion, only a definite number of perlocutionaryeffects need to be dealt with. Finally, she analyseshow perlocutionary effects of accusations ofinconsistency are externalised.

Third, Andone shows how examplesconstructed as close as possible to real lifeexamples demonstrate the value of the conditionsestablished for the speech act of accusation ofinconsistency and how the perlocutionary effects

come about, taking into account the reactions ofthe listener.In the empirical part, qualitative work shows

how persuasive effects arise and how they manifestthemselves in the public political domain. Andonesets up a corpus comprising examples in which casesof accusations of inconsistency occur. The corpus isdivided into two parts. In the first part, Andoneproposes hypotheses concerning the manifestationof perlocutionary effects. In the second part, shetests the hypotheses arising from the analysis of theperlocutionary effects in the first part of thecorpus.

Een a rti ke l in assen in een be erk te ruimte

%\&RULQD$QGRQH

&$QGRQH#XYDQO


5/28

Historians studying the Holocaust often get intofierce controversies, ending in deep disagreement.This worries them, as it blocks the exchange andprogression of historical knowledge, and damagesscholarly reputations. It appears that they becomestuck in deep disagreement over conflicting startingpoints. These starting points are mainly moralviews, views on what man is and how he shouldbehave. The Holocaust as a subject is special in

this sense that it seems to call out these moralstarting points whereas historians would normallykeep implicit the moral views that inform theirhistorical theory, their narrative. But in Holocaustcontroversies these starting points sometimes blockthe discussion.

This research project looks at two of thesederailed controversies: the Arendt-controversy ofthe 1960s and the Goldhagen controversy of the1990s. The countries studied are Germany, Franceand the US. It limits itself to historianscontributions to these controversies, but takes thecontext of the public in account: historical

controversies are often very public, played out innewspapers and weeklies. A limited number of textsfrom both controversies are chosen and subjectedto pragma-dialectical analysis. The research usespragma-dialectics to structure the content of thedebate, make explicit and implicit starting pointsvisible, show exactly which starting points areblocking the discussion, and ultimately givesolutions for better future procedure.

Argumentatively speaking, this study willprovide two in-depth case studies of deepdisagreement, and an extensive exploration of the

uses of pragma-dialectics. The derailed Holocaustcontroversies can model for other (in)famousscholarly and non-scholarly debates that get stuckin moral deep disagreement, ethical or political

discussions for instance.For historians, who have been trying to

put their finger on derailed Holocaustcontroversies for a while, pragma-dialectics


will prove that there is a way out of this deepdisagreement. Historians have been able toanalyse their own deep disagreement, but notprovide any practical solutions for it. Approachingthe problem from argumentation theory has not beentried yet. What will make the study interesting tohistorians, furthermore, is the comparison of their(implicit and explicit) moral views on the Holocaustbetween two different times and in three different

countries. With the instruments historians have attheir disposal, locating and describing the exactcontent of especially their implicit moral views is verydifficult. Using historical methodology, the analysisbecomes as implicit as the views it aims to analyse.

The fact that the Holocaust is not a monolithicmoral symbol, but carries different moral meaningsfor different people, is something that historians andtheir public are becoming increasingly aware of. TheHolocaust is a very important moral symbol to a lot ofpeople. But for many of these people, among themhistorians, it also signifies a non-debatable event. Anevent that has only one, clear meaning or message.This is precisely why Holocaust controversies canexplode so vehemently. The acceptance of aHolocaust with plural meanings is proving to be adifficult one. The neutrality of the pragma-dialectical approach will hopefully be helpful in thecurrent transfer to new ways of viewing theimportance and the remembrance of the Holocaust.

,UUHFRQFLODEOH7UXWKV'HHS'LVDJUHHPHQWLQ+RORFDXVW&RQWURYHUVLHV

%\0HUHO%RHUV

[email protected]


6/28

[email protected]


6RXUFHVRQHDUO\5KHWRULF

%\-HURHQ%RQV

His research concentrates on the earliest stages ofthe development of rhetorical theory in AncientGreece. In what could be called a pre-theoreticalperiod, one can find statements and otherutterances that show an awareness of thepersuasiveness of consciously manipulated languagefrom Homer and Hesiod onwards. This period alsoencompasses the lyric and dramatic poets, as well

as the earliest prose writers.The first theorists of rhetoric, first primarily

descriptive and in later stages also prescriptive, arethe sophists. The study of their legacy entails acareful reexamination of the available sourcematerial, both directly as far as their fragmentaryextant texts are concerned, and also indirectly by acareful reading of Platos dialogues (often hostile tothe sophists and their thinking) and the works ofone of the major early theorists of rhetoric, theAthenian Isocrates. The aim of the research projectis to attain a fresh perspective on the state oftheorising on rhetoric prior to the incisive treatiseon the subject by Aristotle, his Rhetoric.Terminological analysis is a crucial part of theproject. Case-studies have been executed on apate(deceit/seduction) in Gorgias, and on kairos(opportune moment/right measure) in Protagorasand Isocrates.

The main component of this project is theproduction of the volume Sources on Early Rhetoric,in close cooperation with co-author Professor

Michael Edwards of St. Marys College of theUniversity of London. This work will contain acollection of pertinent source-material, with Englishtranslation, and will be published by Brill, Leiden.


7/28

6WUDWHJLF0DQHXYHULQJLQ$UJXPHQWDWLYH'LVFRXUVH

The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentationdeveloped by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004)enables the analyst of argumentative discourse tomake a normative reconstruction that results in ananalytic overview of all elements in the discoursethat are pertinent to a critical evaluation. Thisreconstruction can be further refined and better

accounted for if the standard version of the pragma-dialectical theory is extended by including arhetorical dimension. Developing such an extendedtheory, which enables also a more realistictreatment of the fallacies in the evaluation ofargumentative discourse, is van Eemeren andHoutlossers aim in their project StrategicManeuvering in Argumentative Discourse.

Although the dialectical and the rhetoricalapproach to argumentative discourse were closelyconnected in Antiquity, and have remainedconnected for a long time, they have grown apart.Nowadays there is a paradigmatic division betweendialectical and rhetorical approaches, which causesa conceptual and communicative gap between theirprotagonists. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser claimthat this gap hinders the desired development of afull-fledged theory of argumentation and is, in fact,unnecessary. In their view, the gap can be bridgedby introducing the theoretical concept of strategicmaneuvering, which makes it possible to integraterhetorical insight into a dialectical framework ofanalysis. Strategic maneuvering refers to thedeliberate efforts arguers make to reconcile theiraiming for rhetorical effectiveness with maintaining

dialectical standards of reasonableness.Strategic maneuvering manifests itself inargumentative discourse in the choices that aremade from the topical potential available at a

certain stage in the discourse, in audience-directed framing of the argumentative moves,and in the purposive use of presentationaldevices. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser illustratethis strategic maneuvering for all stages thatare to be distinguished in argumentativediscourse, beginning with the confrontation

stage in which the difference of opinion is definedthat constitutes the rationale for having a criticaldiscussion. Then they discuss the simultaneous pursuitof dialectical and rhetorical aims in the openingstage, when the procedural and material startingpoints are determined. Next they treat, in the samevein, the argumentation stage, when criticism andarguments responding to these criticisms are putforward. They end their illustrations with theconcluding stage, which concentrates on

determining the results of the argumentativeexchange.In empirical reality, argumentative discourse

takes place in different kinds of activity types,which are to a greater or lesser degreeinstitutionalized, so that certain practices havebecome conventionalized in a particular way. In thevarious subtypes of negotiation, for instance, theconventional preconditions for argumentativediscourse are somewhat different from those inmediation, adjudication or parliamentary debate.

%\)UDQVYDQ(HPHUHQ3HWHU+RXWORVVHU

F.H. van [email protected]

[email protected]



8/28

Such differences have an effect on the strategicmaneuvering that takes place in the various activitytypes. Therefore, van Eemeren and Houtlosserdescribe and compare the preconditions for someprominent activity types in terms that are pertinent

to the conduct of strategic maneuvering.In order to connect the possibilities of

strategic maneuvering in the various activity typeswith the argumentative moves that are actuallymade, van Eemeren and Houtlosser make use ofdialectical profiles. Dialectical profiles describethe set of alternative moves that are available at acertain point in the discourse from a dialecticalperspective. By relating the moves that are actuallymade systematically to the spectrum of availabledialectical options, the result that can, in terms ofan analytic overview, be aimed for by making thesemoves, the preconditions of the activity type in

which the moves are made and the commitmentsthe parties involved have amassed in theargumentative situation they have reached, it ispossible to analyse the strategic function of thetype or subtype of maneuvering as it manifestsitself in the argumentative discourse in the topicalselection, the audience-centered framing and thepresentational design that is chosen when makingthese moves.

The identification of types and subtypes ofstrategic maneuvering is helpful in distinguishingbetween sound and fallacious ways of strategic

maneuvering. According to van Eemeren andHoutlosser, a general problem in this endeavour is

that derailments are not always noticeablebecause in general a type of strategicmaneuvering represents a continuum. In addition,because argumentative discourse is in eachactivity type disciplined depending on the specific

requirements of the activity type concerned, thecriteria for determining whether a general normfor critical discussion has been violated may varydepending on the activity type. Van Eemeren andHoutlosser illustrate these problems, and theirsolutions, by explaining when strategicmaneuvering by making an appeal to authorityderails into an argumentum ad verecundiam andstrategic maneuvering by referring to aninconsistency into a tu quoque variant of the

argumentum ad hominem.



9/28

3HUVXDVLYHQHVVDQG/RFDO(IIHFWV

%\)UDQVYDQ(HPHUHQ%HUW0HXIIHOV%DUW*DUVVHQ

)+YDQ(HPHUHQ#XYDQO

+/00HXIIHOV#XYDQO

%-*DUVVHQ#XYDQO

This two-part project focuses on (1) overallpersuasive effects of strategic manoeuvring, and (2)local persuasive effects of strategic manoeuvring.

The main question in the first part of the projectaddresses what dialectically relevant aspects in anargumentative message make a standpoint moreacceptable for ordinary language users. Making useof a theoretical framework that combinesargumentative elements such as standpoints,arguments, and argumentation structures with thedialectical transformations of deletion, addition,permutation, and substitution, enables theresearchers to study the persuasive effects ofdialectically pertinent argumentative moves in asystematic and theoretically justified way. Forinstance, as far as the dialectical transformations

are concerned, in an actual argumentative messagethe standpoint at issue remain implicit, or be madeexplicit, it can be moved to the very beginning ofthe message, to the middle of the message, or tothe end of the message and it can be formulated invarious ways, directly or indirectly. The same kindsof manipulations are possible for otherargumentative elements than the standpoint, forexample, for the argumentation, by the use of othercombinations of argumentative elements anddialectical transformations. The general hypothesis

in this first part of the project is, in line withearlier observations made by Daniel OKeefe thatargumentative messages that are easy to

reconstruct are more immediately persuasive thanmessages that are harder to reconstruct.The general goal of the second part of the

project is to establish what types of strategicmanoeuvring make ordinary language usersconsider certain rule violations less unreasonable.

Because in this part of the project westudy discussion moves in specific discussionstages, the focus is here on local effects ofstrategic manoeuvring. In the project, a series oftypes of strategic manoeuvring will be examinedfor each of the stages. The general hypothesis inthis part of the project is that ordinary arguers

consider clear cases rule violations, which areevidently fallacious, unreasonable to a greaterextent than rule violations that take place bymeans of more subtly disguised types of strategicmanoeuvring. The last category of strategicmanoeuvring will be specified by making use ofthe parameters for determining the strategicfunction a particular type of strategicmanoeuvring can have.



10/28

7HOHRORJLFDO(YDOXDWLYH$UJXPHQWDWLRQLQWKH-XVWLILFDWLRQRI-XGLFDO'HFLVLRQ

The research consists of three parts.Part 1 entails formulating the theoretical

framework for the rational reconstruction ofteleological-evaluative argumentation in thejustification of judicial decisions. Feteris firstdiscusses insights from legal theory and legalphilosophy about the function of goals and values asarguments in the justification of judicial decisions.Then she develops the theoretical framework forthe analysis and evaluation by using the pragma-

dialectical approach and characterizingteleological-evaluative argumentation as a move ina rational discussion. This move implies particularargumentative obligations that have to result inargumentation justifying the application of a legalrule with a particular meaning. From this normativeperspective the necessary components ofteleological-evaluative argumentation are specified.

Part 2 is the implementation of thetheoretical framework for the analysis of differentforms of teleological-evaluative argumentation. Theaim is to explain how the framework can be used asa heuristic tool to clarify the underlying structure

and content of actual justifications of judicialdecisions. First, Feteris discusses the analysis of thestructure and content of different forms ofteleological-evaluative argumentation. Then, sheconcludes part 2 by discussing the analysis ofcombinations of the different forms ofargumentation in complex structures of weighingand balancing that occur in different contexts ofthe interpretation and application of legal rules.

Part 3 consists of the implementation ofthe theoretical framework for the evaluation of

different forms of teleological-evaluativeargumentation. The aim here is to explainhow the framework can be used as a criticaltool to establish whether the argumentationmeets the standards of rationality. Feterisspecifies first the conditions under which

teleological-evaluative argumentation assuch can constitute a sound justification in hardcases from the perspective of legal certaintyand rationality. Then, for the different forms ofteleological-evaluative argumentation shespecifies the conditions under which they can beconsidered as applied properly. She specifiesthe conditions under which the various elementsof the argumentation can be consideredacceptable. Depending on the nature of theargument, these conditions may concernempirical criteria regarding cause and effect,normative criteria regarding the 'quality' of the

sources of the goals and values attributed to arule, and a 'deep justification' of the legitimacyof using certain general legal principles.

The research concludes with an overviewof the status of the theoretical frameworkproposed in the study as a heuristic and criticaltool for the rational reconstruction, analysis andevaluation of complex forms of teleological-evaluative argumentation in the justification oflegal decisions.


Eveline Feteris

[email protected]


11/28

7KH$QDO\VLVRI$UJXPHQWDWLRQ6XSSRUWLQJD&KRLFH

%\,QJHERUJYDQGHU*HHVW

[email protected]

The Dutch government regularly takes decisions aboutmajor projects, such as the construction of a railroad,highway or airport. The parties involved in suchprojects are obliged to follow a certain procedure inwhich a number of reasonable alternative options forthe proposed activity is developed and the effects ofthe options (especially the environmental effects) are

evaluated. The competent authority has to make thefinal choice among the options. The decision is madepublic in a document, a so-called Record of Decision,and has to be supported by argumentation showingthat the information about the options and theireffects has played an important role in the decisionmaking process.

The argumentation in support of the choiceusually consists of a description of a decision makingprocess leading to the choice. Very often thisargumentation is not presented in a way that makes itoptimally understandable for the reader. The choiceitself may be omitted, or it remains unclear which

options were considered and how the pros and conswere actually balanced. These shortcomings make ithard or even impossible for readers researchers,policy makers, citizens, interest groups and otherparties concerned to fully understand and evaluatethe grounds for the decision, and to challenge thedecision in a court of law.

There is a need for guidelines for a criticalevaluation of argumentation supporting a choice. Butthey can only be developed if it is clear how this typeof argumentation can be analysed. Therefore, themain aim of the research project is to develop amethod for systematically analysing argumentation

supporting a choice, in Records of Decision.The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory

developed by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst providesan instrument for analysing argumentative texts. Theanalysis entails carrying out a normativereconstruction, using the ideal model of a criticaldiscussion as a framework. This instrument foranalysis serves as the basis and the point of

departure for this study.The analysis of argumentation in which a

decision making process is described, raises certaindecision theoretical issues for which the pragma-

dialectical approach does not offer specificsolutions. The use of decision theoreticalinsights (from psychological theories on thedecision process of individual decision makers)in addition to the argumentation theoreticalones can make the pragma-dialecticalinstrument more precise and adequate. For thatreason ideas from decision theories, for instanceabout the use of decision rules, areincorporated in the pragma-dialecticalinstrument.

This results in an ideal model for theargumentation structure, in which the elementsplaying a role in the decision making process(such as the choice, the options and thedecision rule) are included. The model can beused as a heuristic tool: it will help to identifyelements from the decision making process in anargumentative text and reconstruct them aspart of the argumentation. The pragma-dialectical guidelines and strategies foridentifying and reconstructing argumentation areelaborated for this specific type ofargumentation.

Another elaboration of the pragma-dialectical instrument consists of incorporatingprocedural constraints from the context inwhich the Records of Decision fulfill a function,for instance the procedural obligation to alwaysinclude an environmental alternative in theargumentation. The application of the model toa great number of Records of Decision makesclear that these procedural refinements arevaluable additions that make the model evenmore suited to the analysis of this specific typeof documents.



12/28

$UJXPHQW)RUPDQG5KHWRULFDO(IIHFW

%\+HQULNH-DQVHQ

[email protected]

Henrike Jansen carries out research on strategicmanoeuvring with the presentation. Specificallythe research is about the rhetorical effect ofargument forms. Argument form is understood asthe way a single argument is presented withregard to the question whether the explicitpremise concerns the data or the inferencelicense and whether the inference license is

formulated as in modus ponens or in modustollens. Examples of these differentpresentations are: Shes probably not at home,since her car is not outside (explicit data),Shes probably not at home, for if her car is notoutside, she most likely isnt (explicit inferencelicense, modus ponens), and Shes probably notat home, otherwise [if she were at home] her carwould be outside (explicit inference license,modus tollens). Very often the same argumentcan be presented in any of the three kinds of thedistinguished forms, which raises the questionwhy an arguer would choose the one form instead

of the other.Argument form interrelates with the

drafting of the standpoint and the premises.Examples of specific drafting is the mood of theinference license (most often but not alwaysindicative mood in modus ponens and orsubjunctive mood in modus tollens) andcontraction in the antecedent of the inferencelicense in modus tollens drafting (otherwise).The first objective of the research is to get ananswer to the question which formulations at thepropositional level are characteristic for the

three argument forms distinguished above. Thisresearch should also provide an answer to thequestion why some arguments cannot beexpressed in each of the three formsdistinguished above, such as in the followingexample of a form with explicit data I shouldearn more money, for my work mate earns moretoo, which cannot be restated into a form withan explicit inference license in modus tollens

drafting *I should earn more money, for if Ishouldnt, my workmate earns more. Once thedrafting of the constituting elements of thethree argument types distinguished above issettled, a linguistic point of view must be usedin order to predict the draftings effectiveness.

The drafting of the constituting parts ofa certain argument form is also influenced bythe argument scheme that is used in theargument. An argument scheme concerns the

nature of inference license. In the pragma-dialectical theory, which is the theoreticalframework of this research, the three mainclasses of types of inference license are thesymptomatic relationship, the relationshipbased on causality and the one based oncomparison. The second objective of theresearch is to connect argument form andargument scheme in order to establish how thedrafting at the sentence level works out foreach type of argument scheme. On the basis ofthese results Jansen tries to answer the

question whether a certain argument schemecan be expressed more effectively in the oneform or the other. Up till now it has turned outthat the argument type of the counterexampleis most effective in the modus tollens form,whereas the argument type of thecounteranalogy is equally effective withexplicit data or with an explicit inferencelicense in modus tollens drafting, and leasteffective with an explicit inference license inmodus ponens drafting.



13/28

5HFRQVWUXFWLRQRI,QWHUSUHWDWLYH$UJXPHQWDWLRQLQ/HJDO'HFLVLRQV$3UDJPD'LDOHFWLFDO$SSURDFK

%\+DUP.ORRVWHUKXLV

[email protected]

In deciding legal cases with interpretationproblems, judges can justify decisions withdifferent types of interpretativeargumentationsuch as linguistic, analogical and substantivearguments. Ideally, these arguments are

recognizable in the justification of the legaldecision. For judges are not only obliged to resolveinterpretation problems properly, they also have anobligation to state reasons for their answers tointerpretational questions. But in practice thesereasons are not always presented explicit, clearand well ordered. Sometimes, the judge does notstate all that is necessary in order to justify hisdecision (for example, because he considers itobvious), at other times he adduces arguments thatare superfluous to the justification. The criticalreader who wants to evaluate these reasons musttherefore solve a number of reconstruction

problems. Developing tools for analyzing andevaluating interpretative arguments in legaldecisions is the aim of Kloosterhuis researchproject. In answering the questions about thisrational reconstruction of interpretativeargumentation, it is the pragma-dialecticalargumentation theory that is taken as a generalframework.

Firstly, interpretative argumentation isanalyzed as an interactionalprocess between twoor more parties with their claims and counterclaimsin a legal discussion. Secondly, interpretativeargumentation is analyzed from a functionalperspective: according to the pragma-dialecticalapproach to argumentation an adequate descripti-on and evaluation of argumentation can only begiven if the purpose for which the argumentation isput forward in the interaction is duly taken intoaccount. In order to describe interpretative

argumentation in a functional perspective it issystematically related to different types ofinterpretation problems, such as indeterminatelanguage or gaps in the law. Thirdly, interpretativeargumentation is analyzed as a process oflegitimization instead of discovery. The focus is onthe positions to which the parties can be commit-ted in the discourse, instead of speculation aboutreal motives parties could have for defending acertain standpoint. Finally, interpretative argu-mentation is viewed as part of a discussionconducted in accordance with the criteria for acritical discussion. Besides the substantive question

of the acceptability of the premises and the formalquestion of the logical validity of interpretativereasoning, also procedural standards of judgmentare relevant, for instance standard about thequestion of whether in a concrete case a specificinterpretative argument is the best way to solve acertain interpretation problem.

The project started with an analysis ofanalogy-argumentation in legal decisions. NowKloosterhuis focuses on other interpretativearguments such as linguistic and substantiveargumentation and argumentation based on legalprinciples. The interaction between this arguments

results in different forms of complexargumentation. Kloosterhuis also investigates thestrategic use of interpretative argumentation.



14/28

5HDVRQDEOHQHVVFRQGLWLRQVIRUVWUDWHJLFPDQRHXYULQJLQDUJXPHQWDWLYHFRQIURQWDWLRQV

%\-DQ$OEHUWYDQ/DDU

[email protected]

In his project, named reasonableness conditions forstrategic manoeuvring in argumentativeconfrontations, Van Laar contributes to the pragma-dialectical research into strategic manoeuvring inargumentative confrontations.

First, Van Laar elaborates on the notion ofconfrontational manoeuvring by developing adialectical profile for the confrontation stage of acritical discussion. This type of profile specifies thekinds of dialectical routes that can bring the parties tothe realization of dialectical objectives in theconfrontation stage.

Second, he characterizes four typical forms ofconfrontational manoeuvring: 1) pointing out aninconsistency between advancing a standpoint and the(former) behaviour of the arguer; 2) pointing out theharmful social consequences of advancing a particularstandpoint (at a particular point in time); 3)reformulating the position of the other party in anopportune manner; 4) neglecting a position. All theseforms of manoeuvring can be used fallaciously in orderto shut out a party or his position from the discussion.However, these forms of manoeuvring can also, inprinciple, be instantiated in a manner that isdialectically legitimate.

For some of these forms of strategicmanoeuvring, the notion of a metadialogue (a kind ofsubdiscussion that takes place in the opening stage butthat is aimed at managing contributions in one of theother stages) is invoked for the purpose of explaining

how that kind of manoeuvring can, in specialcircumstances, be instantiated in a dialectically soundway. The possibility of sound instantiation producespart of the semblance of reasonableness that can stickon, even when the manoeuvring of that type derails.

Third, he develops a classification of forms ofconfrontational manoeuvring. He intends to start froma well-defined inventory of possible dialogical choices

that can be made in a discussion when (1)deciding on the kind of (dialectically relevant)move by which to continue the discussion andwhen (2) deciding on the devices by which toinstantiate this kind of move. When instantiatinga kind of move, the possible dialogical choicesfrom the inventory enable a party to adapt hismove to audience demand, to find opportunetopics and to mould the language effectively. Theinventory is not to be though of as something

fixed but is to be adapted to particular researchaims. Dialectical profiles, as well as profiles thatdepict all dialogical possibilities (relative to thechosen inventory) are used to determine thedialogical situations that can arise as well as allthe (sound as well as fallacious) choices that canbe made in these situations. The classification offorms of manoeuvring is dependent upon theinventory with which one starts.

Fourth, he develops a more or lesssystematic way of developing the soundnessconditions for the forms of confrontationalmanoeuvring. Generating specific soundness

conditions is facilitated by the inventory ofpossible choices.



15/28


16/28

arguments as sound or fallacious.Theempirical part of the study is focused

on: (1) the scrutiny of the relations between

technological and cultural determinants of onlinenews forums and their argumentative qualities. Inorder to see news forums as argumentative activitytypes these determinants have to bee analysed asrules or conventions that systematically altersoundness conditions for strategic manoeuvring;and (2) the analyses of real fragments of on-linedebates, which are meant to reveal the patterns ofstrategic manoeuvring of actual online arguers. Thestudy carried out so far suggests that in thepermissive, freewheeling and anonymous Internetenvironment participants may condone some of thead hominem attacks. At the same time, the critical

and open spirit of the Internet makes onlinearguers highly suspicious about the strategies ofevading the burden of proof by presenting somestandpoints as self-evident and obvious.

&XUUHQWUHVHDUFKLQSUDJPDGLDOHFWV

&XUUHQWUHVHDUFKLQSUDJPDGLDOHFWV


17/28


18/28

The research of Dima Mohammed highlights theeffects of the institutional features of public debateon the parties strategic manoeuvring. The research

examines the attempts of the participants in apublic debate to maintain a balance between theirobligation to argue reasonably and aim to win thediscussion, as they try to exclude the other partysposition from the discussion. It focuses primarily onthose attempts in which an accusation ofinconsistency is employed. The research aims atproviding an answer to the following question: howdoes the institutional setting of a public debateinfluence (a) the possibilities and (b) the criteria forevaluating strategic manoeuvring aimed at excludingthe other partys position by pointing out aninconsistency?

As a necessary step prior to the examinationof strategic manoeuvring in public debates, anexamination of the genre of public debate as a typeof argumentative discourse is provided. Based on asurvey of literature, Mohammed identifies thecharacteristics of public debate and defines it as anargumentative activity type. Given that the genre ofpublic debate is not restricted to a single type ofargumentative practice, the defined activity type ofpublic debate is as broad as it needs to be in orderto include the different types of practices of publicdebate. However, in order to examine the effects ofthe institutional features of a public debate, theresearch needs to concentrate on a specific type ofpublic debate, one whose institutional features canbe clearly characterised. The research focuses onthe Prime Ministers Question Time in theParliament of the United Kingdom. As a type ofpublic debate, the Prime Ministers Question Time isexamined, and defined as a specific activity type.The definition highlights the elements of theinstitutional features of Question Time that have

the potential to influence the argumentativeexchanges that take place.

Having characterised the activity type ofthe Prime Ministers Question Time, Mohammedfocuses on examining the discussants strategicmanoeuvring aimed at excluding the other partysposition from the discussion. Strategicmanoeuvring aimed at excluding the other partysposition is viewed as a way of confrontationalmanoeuvring. Confrontational manoeuvring occursin those parts of argumentative discourse that areto be analysed as (part of) the confrontation stageof a critical discussion. It is viewed to be aimed at

reaching a definition of the difference of opinionthat is instrumental in both critically resolving thedifference of opinion as well as steering theresolution towards a favourable outcome. As away of confrontational manoeuvring, themanoeuvring that is aimed at excluding the otherpartys position from the discussion is presented,in the research, as being aimed at making theother party retract its position at an earlier stageof the debate. With the help of the of

6WUDWHJLF0DQRHXYULQJLQWKH&RQWH[WRI3XEOLF3ROLWLFDO&RQIURQWDWLRQV

%\'[email protected]



19/28

steering the resolution towards a favourableoutcome. As a way of confrontational manoeuvring,the manoeuvring that is aimed at excluding theother partys position from the discussion ispresented, in the research, as being aimed at

making the other party retract its position at anearlier stage of the debate. With the help of thedialectical profile of the confrontation stage,Mohammed identifies the different routes in theconfrontation stage, which are available to adiscussant in order to have the other party retractits position.

Once both the institution of the PrimeMinisters Question Time and the strategicmanoeuvring aimed at excluding the other partysposition from the discussion have been explored andcharacterised within a pragma-dialecticalframework, the influence of the institutional setting

on the attempt of a discussing party to exclude theother partys position can be examined. For this tobe achieved, Mohammed identifies -in the contextof the Prime Ministers Question Time- the variousways of strategic manoeuvring aimed at making theother party retract its position, focusing mainly onthose ways

that employ an accusation of inconsistency. Theways are identified based on the result that theyare viewed to be aimed for, the procedural modesthat can be chosen to achieve this result and the

way in which argumentative and institutionalsituations are taken into account. Given that theinstitutional situation is taken into account whenidentifying the ways of strategic manoeuvring, thevarious ways that are identified will incorporatethe effect of institutional features on thepossibilities of strategic manoeuvring. This will inturn be the basis for examining the influence ofinstitutional features on the criteria of evaluatinginstances of the previously identified ways ofstrategic manoeuvring. For that, soundnessconditions for the possible instances of theidentified ways of strategic manoeuvring will be

set.



20/28

0DQRHXYULQJ6WUDWHJLFDOO\ZLWK4XRWDWLRQV

%\0DULDQ3LMQHQEXUJ

[email protected]

The Ph.D. research project of Marian Pijnenburgfocuses on the argumentative use of directquotations. She intends to make a contribution to afurther development of the recently established

pragma-dialectic theory of strategic manoeuvring inargumentative discourse. Pijnenburg examines howthe writer of an argumentative text can manoeuvrestrategically by means of direct quotations.

To answer the question how quotations canbe functionally used in an argumentative text, apragmatic approach of quotations is proposed inwhich quoting is analysed as the performance of aspeech act. The speech act quoting belongs to theclass of assertives and can be used to put forwarda standpoint or argumentation in defence of astandpoint. When quoting is used to express astandpoint, the speaker or writer makes knownwhat his position is with respect to thepropositional content or the communicative force ofthe speech act that is quoted. When quoting is usedto put forward argumentation, the propositionalcontent or the communicative force of the speechact that is quoted, is in a certain way connectedwith the standpoint at issue.

In her research project, Pijnenburg examineshow the writer of a journalistic commentary canmake use of the speech act of quoting to put

forward a standpoint or argumentation for astandpoint. She aims todetermine what thesimilarities and the dissimilarities are between

these ways of presenting and the presentation ofa standpoint or argumentation by other meansthan quoting. Subsequently she aims todetermine how the identified presentationaldevices can be profitably used by the writer toenhance the convincingness of his standpoint.



21/28

7KH$QDO\VLVDQG(YDOXDWLRQRI'LVFXVVLRQVLQWKH/HJLVODWLYH3URFHVV$3UDJPD'LDOHFWLFDO5HFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKH-XVWLILFDWLRQRI/HJLVODWLYH'HFLVLRQV

%\[email protected]

to legal and political discourse.In her research project on argumentation

in legislative discussions Plug explores the areawhere legal and political settings meet. Sincepoliticians as well as legists participate in thecreation of legislation, both political and legalarguments will be part of legislative discussions.Argumentation for legislative decisions may, afterall, have both political and legal consequences.The arguments that are brought forward indiscussions when a bill is put forward in

Parliament may later on, after it has beenadopted, play an important role when, in a legalprocedure, a judge has to decide on theinterpretation of that bill (see Plug 2005).

Although the settings are interwoven andlegislative decisions may even be conceived aslegal decisions, a model for the reconstruction ofa legal argumentation as developed by Feteris(1989) is not equipped for the reconstruction ofargumentation in a legislative process. Thecomplexity of the legislative process and thecharacteristics of this specific decision makingprocess, in Plugs view, necessitates a separate

model for the reconstruction of legislativeargumentation. Since the development of themodel starts from the pragma-dialectical

approach, Plug first concentrates on thequestion how legislative argumentation couldbe taken as a part of a critical discussion. Forthe development of the model she willprovide a description of the stages oflegislative discussions, the relevantcontributions in the stages and the roles ofthe participants.

Jos Plug is currently working on the projectArgumentation in legislative discussions. Thecentral goal of her research project is to develop amodel for the analysis and evaluation ofargumentation that is brought forward in discussionsin the lawmaking process. Since a legislativedecision may have serious effects on society as a

whole and may affect individual liberties andinterests, such a decision may be expected to besupported by sound justifying arguments. The modelPlug is working on aims to provide a tool for anadequate reconstruction and evaluation of thejustification of legislative decisions. This modelshould form the basis of a detailed analysis ofstrategic manoeuvres in legislative discussions andit could offer a starting point for a comparativestudy of the justification of legislative decisionstaken by different legislatures in various countriesfor similar social issues.

Plugs research project is based on aninterdisciplinary approach that links insights frompolitical science, legal theory and philosophy,parliamentary discourse and argumentation theoryin a theoretical framework that aims to assess thequality of argumentation for legislative decisionsfrom the perspective of a rational discussion.

Her research is part of a larger projectentitled Strategic manoeuvring in institutionaldiscourse. This project is aimed at developinginstruments for analysing and evaluatingargumentative discourse in institutional settings.The research in this project focuses on the

institutional requirements and goals that influenceboth the procedure and the content ofargumentation and the strategic manoeuvres thatare used for resolving differences of opinion in legaland politicalsettings and on the specificrequirements for the rationality that are pertinent



22/28

6WUDWHJLF0DQHXYHULQJZLWK/DQJXDJH

%\/HDK3ROFDU

[email protected]

Leah Polcar's first primary research track involvesinvestigating how non-straightforwardness, as astrategic maneuver, influences argumentative

discussions. This research has several components:the identification of different types of non-straightforwardness relative to a particulardiscourse (question-answer argumentativediscussions); the identification of the specificpragmatic properties of various sorts of non-straightforwardness particularly evasive responses;identifying the role and pragmatic properties ofquestions that elicit non-straightforward responses;and empirical testing of the influence (andeffectiveness) of non-straightforwardness as astrategic maneuver on argumentativediscussion.

Polcar's second research track, conducted

with Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, involvesempirically testing how ordinary language usersevaluate certain stylistic devices, such as preteritioand rhetorical questions. The central question thatPolcar and Snoeck Henkemans attempt to answer inthis research is whether the predicted effects ofcertain stylistic devices on critical quality of thediscussion comport with the evaluation of ordinary

language users.



23/28

The current research project of M.A. van Rees is toprepare a monograph about the argumentativetechnique of dissociation. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca described this argumentative technique intheir Nouvelle Rhetorique. In dissociation, aconcept considered by the audience as a unitarywhole is split up into two new concepts, each

comprising part of the original one.The first task to be executed is to give amore precise definition of this technique and tocompare and contrast it with other, similar,techniques. Dissociation involves two speech acts:distinction and definition. What is particular aboutthe technique is that it always involves a valuejudgment: one of the two dissociated concepts isconsidered to contain the real, essential aspects ofthe original notion, in opposition to the other one,which is considered to contain the apparent,incidental aspects.

The second task is to show how dissociation

becomes manifest in discourse. Indicators ofdissociation can be derived from the three corecharacteristics of dissociation: distinction,opposition, and value judgment.

The third task is to complement Perelmanand Olbrechts-Tytecas rhetorical and monologualapproach to dissociation with a dialectical anddialogual perspective. The extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation provides thetheoretical model to describe how dissociation canbe used in the rational resolution of conflicts ofopinion. Dissociation, it turns out, can be used ineach stage of a critical discussion. In each stage,

because of the particular characteristics of thistechnique, particular dialectical and rhetoricaleffects can be reached by the use of dissociation.

The final task is to determine when the use

of dissociation in a critical discussion can beconsidered dialectically sound, and why this is

the case. Various views on the soundness ofdissociation are discussed and contrasted with apragma-dialectical approach. In the latterapproach, a balanced view of the dialecticalsoundness of dissociation can be reached.Dissociation by no means always is unsound. In apragma-dialectical perspective, dissociation,because it involves a new conceptual division anda redefinition of terms, comes down to changingthe starting points of a critical discussion.Dissociation is dialectically unsound when thechange in starting points is not put up fordiscussion or when the change in starting points isnot accepted by the antagonist, and thetechnique nevertheless is used as if the change instarting points were accepted. But this certainlyneed not always be the case. In fact, thetechnique may be used as a sound reply to anumber of dubious moves in argumentativediscussions.

The research is based on the systematicanalysis of a great number of examples ofdissociation in a variety of every-day texts. These

examples are analyzed within the theoreticalframework of Pragma-Dialectics. In the book, thevarious articles that M.A. van Rees earlierpublished about dissociation are reworked andbrought together into a coherent whole.

'LVVRFLDWLRQ

%\$JQVYDQ5HHV


[email protected]


24/28

6W\OLVWLF&KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI6WUDWHJLF0DQRHXYULQJ

%\)[email protected]

Francisca Snoeck Henkemans research forms partof the project Stylistic characteristics of strategicmanoeuvring. The aim of this project consists indetermining the stylistic characteristics of thepatterns of moves that may, viewed dialectically,systematically develop between the participants ata particular stage of a critical discussion. By makinguse of insights from classical rhetoric and modernstylistic approaches, such as pragma-linguistic andcognitive linguistic theories, Snoeck Henkemansexplores the possibilities for strategicalmanoeuvring with specific presentational means.

To obtain more insight into the strategicalpotential of certain tropes and figures of thought,Snoeck Henkemans gives an analysis of possiblecommunicative and interactional effects thesedevices may have according to classical and modern

stylistics. These effects are then analysed from theperspective of strategic manoeuvring. For eachstage of an argumentative discussion, SnoeckHenkemans examines which role stylistic devicessuch as metonymy, rhetorical questions and

praeteritio can play in arguers attempts to achieveboth their rhetorical and their dialectical aims. Shealso attempts to obtain more insight in how thetypes of strategic manoeuvring that the devices inquestion can be instrumental in may derail, and inwhich types of violations of the rules for criticaldiscussion such derailed manoeuvrings may typicallyresult.



25/28

6W\OLVWLF&KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI6WUDWHJLF0DQRHXYULQJLQ$UJXPHQWDWLYH&RQIURQWDWLRQV

%\


26/28

4XDOLILFDWLRQRI6WDQGSRLQWVDQG%XUGHQRI3URRI

%\$VVLPDNLV7VHURQLV

[email protected]

In his project, Tseronis seeks to answer the followingtwo questions: what is the pragmatic information thatcan be drawn from the choices that the protagonist ofa standpoint can make in order to qualify it, and howsuch information can be of use to the analyst who isabout to reconstruct and evaluate the piece ofargumentative discourse where the qualified

standpoint appears.In the pragma-dialectical framework, an

utterance functions as a standpoint because of therelation that can be established between thisutterance and the preceding and following utterancesin the discourse. The way language is used canprovide additional clues for the identification andreconstruction of standpoints. In the light of thestrategic manoeuvring approach, which is beingdeveloped within Pragma-dialectics, the space opensup for the study of the strategic effect that choices inthe use of language have on the development of anargumentative discussion. Along these lines, Tseronisproposes to treat qualification as one of thepresentational devices at the protagonists disposalwhen formulating the standpoint with the effect ofmanaging the burden of proof.

To qualify a standpoint is to be understood inillocutionary terms as adding a comment that framesthe act of advancing a standpoint that the protagonistperforms when addressing a present or implicitantagonist. The comment may pertain to one of thethree dimensions that are tentatively identified asplaying a role in the interactional event of engaging inan argumentative discussion, namely epistemic,

affective and communicative. Thus the protagonistmay add a comment: a) concerning the knowledge hehas when advancing the position he does, b)concerning the evaluation he has when advancing theposition he does, or c) concerning the very act ofadvancing the position he does. Any of the three kindsof comment distinguished above can be realized in acertain language by a variety of linguistic means:particles, single word adverbs, prepositional phrases,adverbial phrases, parenthetical phrases, as well asprosodic and other para-linguistic means.

In this project, Tseronis focuses on singleword adverbs inEnglish such as: apparently,clearly, perhaps, presumably, technically,actually, frankly, theoretically, unfortunately,ironically, luckily, honestly, known as stanceadverbials.

An utterance, which is qualified by meansof a stance adverbial and which may be

reconstructed as a standpoint, counts as aqualifiedstandpoint only when the comment thatthe adverbial adds can be omitted withoutaffecting the relevance of the argumentationadduced in support of that standpoint, as is thecase in example (1) below but not in (2):

(1)Unfortunately, previous surveys ofpeoples animal preferences conducted mainly inthe United States are difficult to compare

because, generally, different methods wereemployed.

(2)Unfortunately, only two teams will now beable to take part in the Inter Counties match

because everyone seemed to enjoy takingpart.To advance a standpoint incurs a burden of

proof on the protagonist, which is to his interestto successfully discharge by having the standpointboth tested and accepted at the end of thediscussion.



27/28

In order to understand the strategic effect ofqualification, Tseronis postulates that by qualifyingthe standpoint the protagonist seeks ideally tostrike a balance between the dialectical goal of

having the standpoint tested and the rhetorical goalof having it accepted by the other party. Thedifferent kinds of comment with which theprotagonist can frame a standpoint are instrumentalin paving the way for a successful discharge of theburden of proof. The choice of the appropriateadverbial, in view of the specific topic discussedand the specific audience addressed at a givenmoment, amounts to what can be called themanagement of the burden of proof. Theadverbials, by virtue of the different pragmaticcomment that they add, help the protagonistdownplay the challenge that advancing a standpoint

brings to what is accepted until that point, and atthe same time enhance the presumptive status ofthe arguments that the protagonist adduces insupport of that standpoint.

By assuming that the strategic effect ofqualifying the standpoint by means of stanceadverbials is to manage the burden of proof,Tseronis suggests that the analyst who encounters a

qualified standpoint can regard both partiesengaged in its testing as endorsing the commentthat the particular adverbial adds to the discussionat hand. The protagonists defense and theantagonists attack of the standpoint would then be

expected to be in line with the implications that theuse of the particular adverbial has for thedevelopment of the discussion. When it comes tothe evaluation, a comparison between the ideal wayin which adverbials are to be used in order toqualify standpoints and the way a particularadverbial is actually used in the discourse understudy would indicate whether the choice of thatadverbial was an impediment to the critical testingof the standpoint or not.



28/28

Aac Special Issue

Documents

Transcript of Aac Special Issue