Page 32 - 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. 32
What Do We Know about the World?
5. Step Four: Argument in its Dialogical Context
Yet another approach to argument which emphasizes the context
in which arguments occur is dialogue theory. It suggests that we under-
stand an argument as an element in a “dialogue” which establishes pa-
rameters that dictate those moves that are acceptable and unacceptable
in argument. In their classic account of pragma-dialectics, van Eemer-
en and Grootendorst (1992) situate argumentation within a form of di-
alogue they call a “critical discussion.” The theory of argument they de-
velop distinguishes different stages of critical discussion (confrontation,
opening, argumentation, closing) and elaborates rules that regulate the
discussion at each stage. Good arguments are arguments that abide by
the rules; poor arguments are arguments that fail to do so. In the pro-
cess, fallacies are explained as violations of these rules.
In the building of a thick theory of argument pragma-dialectics tells
us that arguments must be understood as elements of a form of dialogue
which implies normative rules that delineate right and wrong ways to ar-
gue. From a pragma-dialectical point of view, we can diagram the gener-
al structure of premise/conclusion arguments as I have below. I will de-
scribe this structure by saying that the rules of critical discussion estab-
lish a dialogical frame of reference (or, more simply, “a frame”) in which
arguments occur (in passing it bears mention that Entman (1993) and
others use the word “frame” in a different way). Analyzing and evaluat-
ing arguments that occur within this frame must be done in accordance
with the rules the frame implies.
Conditions of Uncertainty
Critical Discussion
Premises and Conclusion
5. Step Four: Argument in its Dialogical Context
Yet another approach to argument which emphasizes the context
in which arguments occur is dialogue theory. It suggests that we under-
stand an argument as an element in a “dialogue” which establishes pa-
rameters that dictate those moves that are acceptable and unacceptable
in argument. In their classic account of pragma-dialectics, van Eemer-
en and Grootendorst (1992) situate argumentation within a form of di-
alogue they call a “critical discussion.” The theory of argument they de-
velop distinguishes different stages of critical discussion (confrontation,
opening, argumentation, closing) and elaborates rules that regulate the
discussion at each stage. Good arguments are arguments that abide by
the rules; poor arguments are arguments that fail to do so. In the pro-
cess, fallacies are explained as violations of these rules.
In the building of a thick theory of argument pragma-dialectics tells
us that arguments must be understood as elements of a form of dialogue
which implies normative rules that delineate right and wrong ways to ar-
gue. From a pragma-dialectical point of view, we can diagram the gener-
al structure of premise/conclusion arguments as I have below. I will de-
scribe this structure by saying that the rules of critical discussion estab-
lish a dialogical frame of reference (or, more simply, “a frame”) in which
arguments occur (in passing it bears mention that Entman (1993) and
others use the word “frame” in a different way). Analyzing and evaluat-
ing arguments that occur within this frame must be done in accordance
with the rules the frame implies.
Conditions of Uncertainty
Critical Discussion
Premises and Conclusion
