Page 276 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 276
What Do We Know about the World?
participants in reply to other messages (Walton, 1992). Therefore, a di-
alogue can be more straightforwardly defined as a sequence of exchang-
es of messages or speech acts between two (or more) participants (Wal-
ton, 1998; 2006; 2008; cf. Fuentes and Santibáñez, 2011). The most ele-
mentary illustration of a dialogue is when one party asks another party
a question (Walton, 2007).
Rules and goals are other important components of dialogue. Rules
define the types of messages allowed at each move, the turn taking,
and what counts as a successful sequence of messages in fulfilling the
goal. The goal in contrast is the final state toward which the sequence of
moves progresses. There are two types of goals: collective and individu-
al. A collective goal refers to the goal pursued by a particular type of di-
alogue. Some examples of collective goals are the following: to resolve a
difference of opinion, to reach an informed basis for action, to reveal a
deeper conflict, or to transfer knowledge. Individual goals, on the oth-
er hand, are the goals individuals pursue in order to realize the collective
goal of the type of dialogue they are engaged in. Some examples of in-
dividual goals are to persuade one party of the correctness of a particu-
lar proposition, to obtain or give advice on a problem, to verbally strike
at and humiliate an opponent, or to obtain information (Walton, 1992;
2006).
Several identifiable types of dialogue exist based on this framework.
A pedagogical type of dialogue stems from an initial situation where one
party is ignorant and involves the collective goal of transferring knowl-
edge. Diversely, negotiation occurs in the context of a conflict of interest
with settlement as the collective goal. Lastly, persuasion dialogue or crit-
ical discussion emerges from a difference of opinion with the aim of re-
solving the disagreement as a collective goal (Walton, 1992, 1996).
Debate is a type of dialogue, too. Its context is adversarial, and both
parties aim to persuade a third party, i.e., the audience or the judge, by
making the strongest argument for their side. In addition, debate is
strictly regulated by rules of procedure that determine when and how
long each arguer may speak. When the debate ends, the audience, ei-
ther one or more judges or another type of referee, determine by voting
which side had the better argument (Snider, 2008; Walton, 2008).
Some scholars do not recognize these debate rules, also called debate
format, to be the main features of this type of dialogue because a real de-
bate means advancing, disputing and defending arguments relevant to
the issue debated (Branham, 1991: 22). However, in this paper we con-
sider both rules and advancing, disputing and defending arguments rele-
participants in reply to other messages (Walton, 1992). Therefore, a di-
alogue can be more straightforwardly defined as a sequence of exchang-
es of messages or speech acts between two (or more) participants (Wal-
ton, 1998; 2006; 2008; cf. Fuentes and Santibáñez, 2011). The most ele-
mentary illustration of a dialogue is when one party asks another party
a question (Walton, 2007).
Rules and goals are other important components of dialogue. Rules
define the types of messages allowed at each move, the turn taking,
and what counts as a successful sequence of messages in fulfilling the
goal. The goal in contrast is the final state toward which the sequence of
moves progresses. There are two types of goals: collective and individu-
al. A collective goal refers to the goal pursued by a particular type of di-
alogue. Some examples of collective goals are the following: to resolve a
difference of opinion, to reach an informed basis for action, to reveal a
deeper conflict, or to transfer knowledge. Individual goals, on the oth-
er hand, are the goals individuals pursue in order to realize the collective
goal of the type of dialogue they are engaged in. Some examples of in-
dividual goals are to persuade one party of the correctness of a particu-
lar proposition, to obtain or give advice on a problem, to verbally strike
at and humiliate an opponent, or to obtain information (Walton, 1992;
2006).
Several identifiable types of dialogue exist based on this framework.
A pedagogical type of dialogue stems from an initial situation where one
party is ignorant and involves the collective goal of transferring knowl-
edge. Diversely, negotiation occurs in the context of a conflict of interest
with settlement as the collective goal. Lastly, persuasion dialogue or crit-
ical discussion emerges from a difference of opinion with the aim of re-
solving the disagreement as a collective goal (Walton, 1992, 1996).
Debate is a type of dialogue, too. Its context is adversarial, and both
parties aim to persuade a third party, i.e., the audience or the judge, by
making the strongest argument for their side. In addition, debate is
strictly regulated by rules of procedure that determine when and how
long each arguer may speak. When the debate ends, the audience, ei-
ther one or more judges or another type of referee, determine by voting
which side had the better argument (Snider, 2008; Walton, 2008).
Some scholars do not recognize these debate rules, also called debate
format, to be the main features of this type of dialogue because a real de-
bate means advancing, disputing and defending arguments relevant to
the issue debated (Branham, 1991: 22). However, in this paper we con-
sider both rules and advancing, disputing and defending arguments rele-
