Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 161–185 | Cite as

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry

  • Marcin LewińskiEmail author
  • Mark Aakhus
Article

Abstract

In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, we scrutinize the advantages and pitfalls of applying a dialectical framework to polylogue analysis and evaluation. We recognize two basic dialectical methods: interpreting polylogues as exchanges between two main camps and splitting polylogues into a multitude of dual encounters. On the basis of this critical inquiry, we lay out an argument expressing the need for an improved polylogical model and propose its basic elements.

Keywords

Argumentation design Deliberation Dialectics Dichotomization Multi-party discussion Polylogue 

References

  1. Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.Google Scholar
  2. Aakhus, M. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs 74(1): 112–117.Google Scholar
  3. Aakhus, M. 2013. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–113.Google Scholar
  4. Aakhus, M., and S. Jackson. 2005. Technology, interaction and design. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. K. Fitch, and R. Sanders, 411–433. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, J.A. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12(2): 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blair, J.A. 2012. Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as related to argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric 45(2): 148–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonevac, D. 2003. Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation 17(4): 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brashers, D.E., and R.A. Meyers. 1989. Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. B.E. Gronbeck, 542–550. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  9. Bruxelles, S., and C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 75–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Canary, D.J., B.G. Brossmann, and D.R. Seibold. 1987. Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal 53(1): 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark, H.H. 1992. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dascal, M. 2008. Dichotomies and types of debate. In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feteris, E.T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fogelin, R.J. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7(1): 1–8.Google Scholar
  16. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, S. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12(2): 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(4): 177–204.Google Scholar
  20. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Jacquette, D. 2007. Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21(2): 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  24. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krabbe, E.C.W. 1999. Profiles of Dialogue. In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, 25–36. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Krabbe, E.C.W. 2000. Meeting in the house of Callias: Rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14(3): 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lakatos, I. 1974. The role of crucial experiments in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(4): 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levinson, S.C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. P. Drew, and A. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.Google Scholar
  30. Lewiński, M. 2012. Public deliberation as a polylogue: Challenges of argumentation analysis and evaluation. In Inside arguments: Logic and the study of argumentation, ed. H. J. Ribeiro, 223–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  31. Lewiński, M. 2013a. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 151–177.Google Scholar
  32. Lewiński, M. 2013b. Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013, ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–18. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  33. McBurney, P., D. Hitchcock, and S. Parsons. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mohammed, D. 2011. Strategic manoeuvring in simultaneous discussions. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1–11). CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  35. Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958).Google Scholar
  36. Prakken, H. 2009. Models of persuasion dialogue. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G.R. Simari, 281–300. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rehg, W., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. 2005. Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: Assessing deliberative legitimacy. AI & SOCIETY 19(3): 203–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  39. Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salmon, M.H., and C.M. Zeitz. 1995. Analyzing conversational reasoning. Informal Logic 17(1): 1–23.Google Scholar
  41. Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  42. Sylvan, R. 1985. Introducing polylogue theory. Philosophica 35(1): 89–112.Google Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1988. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2(2): 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F.S. Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Rees, M.A. 1995. Analyzing and evaluating problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 9(2): 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Rees, M.A. 2001. The diagnostic power of the stages of critical discussion in the analysis and evaluation of problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 15(4): 457–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. van Rees, M.A. 2003. Within pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac. Argumentation 17(4): 461–464.Google Scholar
  54. Walton, D.N. 1984. Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  56. Walton, D.N. 1999. Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 13(1): 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walton, D.N. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  59. Walton, D.N., and F. Macagno. 2010. Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24(3): 283–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wenzel, J. W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. J. Schuetz, and R. Trapp, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  62. Zarefsky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22(3): 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL)Universidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Laboratory for the Study of Applied Language Technology and Society (SALTS), School of Communication and InformationRutgers, The State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations