Argumentative contexts and applications
a. Political argumentation
The first project on political argumentation, by Bart Garssen and Frans H. van Eemeren, examines the ways in which argumentative discourse prototypically manifests itself in argumentative reality in the domain of political argumentation. The project concentrates on the specific patterns of argument schemes and argumentation structures that can be found in particular communicative activity types, using parliamentary debate in the European Parliament as a case in point.
Eemeren, F.H. van & B. Garssen (2010). 'In varietate concordia' - United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19-37. Eemeren, F.H. van & B.J. Garssen (2010). Constraints on political deliberation: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In D. Gouran (Ed.), The Functions of Argument and Social Context. Selected Papers from the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation Sponsored by the National Communication and the American Forensic Association (pp. 505-514). Washington DC: NCA.
The second project, by Corina Andone, aspires to provide empirically adequate and normatively sound insights that are needed to deal with argumentation in political accountability in a proper way. It will do so by approaching political account-giving from a perspective of argumentation theory into which political and legal insights are integrated. This means that politicians are regarded to have a probative obligation to respond to criticisms regarding the acceptability of their performances, and that it is fundamental to examine whether they meet these obligations while considering the political and legal constraints imposed on them.
The aim of this research project is two-fold. First, the instruments necessary for an accurate analysis and evaluation of the way in which Members of the European Commission go about meeting their probative obligations in discussions with parliamentary committees of inquiry and in political interviews will be developed. Second, an explanation of why in specific cases probative obligations are met or not met will be provided.
Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in Political Interviews. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Andone, C. (2014). Maneuvering with the burden of proof: Confrontational strategies in dealing with political accountability. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49), DOI: 10.2478/slgr-2014-0004.
The project The analysis of argumentation in favour of a decision in the context of EIA is carried out by Ingeborg van der Geest. The aim is to develop a method for the analysis of argumentation in Dutch governmental Records of Decision on projects for which an Environmental Impact Assessment has been carried out. Insights from decision theories are used to refine the pragma-dialectical analytic instrument, to enable a precise and well-founded analysis. The application of this instrument is examined by the analysis of a corpus of Records of Decision, taking into account the institutional requirements and the possibilities for strategic maneuvering.
b. Legal argumentation
The project by Eveline Feteris concentrates on the characterization of the strategic maneuvering in legal adjudication and legal justification as specific argumentative activity types. Insights from such disciplines as artificial intelligence and law, legal logic, legal philosophy and legal theory are integrated in the pragma-dialectical framework to develop models for the theoretical analysis of the strategic maneuvering in legal adjudication and legal justification. The aim is to investigate the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering that form the external constraints on the argumentative discourse. The rules and norms for rational argumentative discourse in a legal context are analyzed as specific implementations of rules and norms for rational argumentative discourse that create the space for the strategic maneuvering.
Feteris, E.T. (2012).Strategic maneuvering with the argumentative role of legal principles in the case of the ‘Unworthy Spouse’. In: C. Dahlman & E.T. Feteris (Eds.), Legal argumentation theory: Cross Disciplinary Perspectives, Dordrecht etc.: Springer, pp. 85-102.
Feteris, E.T. (2012).The role of the judge in legal proceedings: A pragma-dialectical analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context, Vol. 1, nr. 2, pp. 234-252.
José Plug participates in the project Comprehensible legal language (Duidelijke taal) together with Paul van den Hoven (University Utrecht) and Harm Kloosterhuis (Erasmus University Rotterdam). This project starts from the idea that in communicating their judgments to citizens, judges are confronted with two important dilemmas. (1) In the justification of a decision, the judge often needs to appeal to specialist knowledge that the lay person lacks, while including all procedural and material issues in the text would make this lengthy and complex (the ‘knowledge-problem’). (2) In arguing the decision, administrative judges simultaneously address several antagonists with differing interests: the civil party, the government as a party, the legal community, the jurisprudential forum, the appeals court. Arguments essentially directed at legal specialists in all these differing parties often complicate the discourse for the lay person (the ‘discussion-problem’). The aim of this project is to determine which argumentative strategies are employed by Dutch administrative judges to address the two problems. The project is supported by the The Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak).
Plug, H.J. (2008). Naar een verbetering van strafmotiveringen. Een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van het PROMIS model. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing , 30, nr. 3, 249-267, (with Paul van den Hoven).
Plug, H.J. (2012) Obscurities in the Formulation of Legal Argumentation. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse , Volume 2.1, pp 126-142.
c. Medical argumentation
Within the medical domain, a number of research projects are undertaken.
An empirical project within the domain of medical argumentation is carried out by Bert Meuffels in cooperation with Peter J. Schulz (Department of Health Communication, ISI, University of Lugano), in which the persuasiveness of health communication brochures pertaining to breast cancer screening is investigated, both in Switzerland and in the Netherlands. The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory functions as a starting point in the construction of the leaflets and as an interpretative framework for analyzing the quantitative and qualitative responses of the targeted audience.
Meuffels, B. (2011). (with Peter J. Schulz). Breast cancer screening. A case in point. In: Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen & Franscisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.). Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics: In honor of Frans H. Van Eemeren. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins . pg. 117-133. Meuffels, B. (2012). (with Peter J. Schulz). “It is about our body, our body!”. On the Difficulty of Telling Dutch Women under 50 That Mammography is not for Them. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1, nr.1, pg. 130-142.
Meuffels, B. (2012). (with Peter J. Schulz). Justifying Age Thresholds for Mammographic Screening: An application of Pragma-Dialectical Argumentation Theory. Health Communication, 27, nr. 2, pg. 167-178.
A second project is carried out by Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and focuses on giving a characterization of the institutional constraints that influence the doctor’s and patient’s strategic maneuvering in the medical encounter. The role of argumentation in the communication between expert (doctor) and non- expert (patient) is investigated.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. & D. Mohammed (2012). Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared decision medical decision making. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1 (1), 19-32.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. & J.H.M. Wagemans (2012). The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making, In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens: Proceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012 (pp. 345-354). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.
The PhD-project A doctor’s argument by authority: An analytical and empirical pragma-dialectical study of authority argumentation in medical consultation is carried out by Roosmaryn Pilgram. The research starts from the problem that in medical consultation, the doctor’s advice is not always immediately or fully accepted by the patient. An important way in which the doctor can nonetheless make his advice acceptable is by presenting argumentation in support of it. One type of argumentation is particularly interesting in the context of a medical consultation: a doctor’s argument by authority. In this argument, a discussant refers to his own authority to indicate the acceptability of his standpoint. If advanced by a doctor in medical consultation, a patient might place particular weight on the argument, as he requested the consultation because of the doctor’s authority on health problems. Conversely, this kind of argument allows the doctor to avoid a detailed discussion of the patient’s health problem. The question arises under which conditions a doctor’s argument by authority can be considered a reasonable and effective discussion contribution in medical consultation.
Pilgram, R. (2012). Reasonableness of a doctor’s argument by authority: A pragma-dialectical analysis of the specific soundness conditions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 33-50.
Pilgram, R. (2012). Strategisch manoeuvreren in medische consultatie: Een pragma-dialectische analyse van autoriteitsargumentatie van de arts. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 34(2), 168-181.
The final project in the medical domain is Strategic maneuvering with authority arguments in direct-to- consumer medical advertisements, carried out as a PhD project by Renske Wierda. In direct-to-consumer medical advertisements, manufacturers try to convince consumers to buy a medical product, such as a prescription drug, a pain killer or a dietary product. A type of argumentation that is often used within this communicative activity type is the authority argument. To determine whether an authority argument is sound, the reader of a medical advertisement can subject the argument to several critical questions. The aim of the research project is twofold. First, an analytical account will be provided of an advertiser’s possibilities for strategic maneuvering with the anticipation of critical questions regarding authority arguments in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. Secondly, it will be determined empirically to what extent the readers of these advertisements are capable of telling apart reasonable uses of authority arguments from unreasonable uses.
Wierda, R.M., & Visser, J.C. (2012). Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs as an argumentative activity type. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 81-96.
d. Academic argumentation
Within the academic domain there are currently three research projects carried out.
The research project Strategic maneuvering by scientific experts is aimed at the development of instruments for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation put forward by scientific experts in defense of their claims. Scientists mainly operate in two different contexts. The first one is the context of scientific discussions, in which the expert discusses his findings with other experts operating in the same field. Regarding this type of discussions, the research project aims at providing an extended pragma-dialectical description of their argumentative characteristics, consisting of the empirical counterparts of the stages of a critical discussion relevant to the communicative activity types involved, the main conventions that play a role in scientific discussions, and the argumentative patterns typically developed within them. Special attention is paid to the analysis and evaluation of thought experiments (Eugen Popa) and to argumentation based on abduction (Jean Wagemans). The second context in which scientists operate is that of advisory discussions, in which the scientific expert defends a claim in front of a lay audience (e.g. shared decision making between doctors and patients). As to this type of discussions, the research project aims to provide criteria for the evaluation of the reasonableness of such expert advice, reconstructing it as argumentation from expert opinion (Wagemans).
Wagemans, J.H.M. (2011). The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation, 25, 329-339.
Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2012). The reasonableness of argumentation from expert opinion in medical discussions: Institutional safeguards for the quality of shared decision making. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens (pp. 345-354). Ames, IA: GPSSA.
Supposing for the sake of argument: A pragma-dialectical analysis and evaluation of academic thought experiments, is carried out as a PhD project by Eugen Popa. In this research project a systematic approach to thought experiments from the perspective of argumentation theory will be presented. The application of pragmatic, dialectical and rhetorical tools as conceptualized in the pragma-dialectical approach can offer solutions to the questions of analysis and evaluation of thought experiments. Thought experiment will be seen as recognizable patterns in a process of critically testing theories and claims. In this process, the thought experimenter will perform certain discursive moves which can be seen as “strategic maneuvers”, that is, as attempts to balance the goal of effectiveness with the standard of reasonableness. Given this perspective, specific instances of thought experiments will be evaluated by applying the general normative criteria to the specific institutional context of academic communication.
The PhD project, A controversy on judgment of historical guilt, is a carried out by Merel Boers. In this project the pragma-dialectical method is used as an analytical tool to gain a more profound understanding of a famous historical controversy: the controversy over philosopher Hannah Arendt’s book Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963). Holocaust controversies, even when conducted ‘professionally’ among historians, are often long-lasting, and damaging to its participants. Over the course of decades, these discussions seem to repeat themselves over and over, without much fruit or progress.
Boers first approaches the Arendt-controversy from a historian’s perspective, looking at the discussion of the book in about four hundred reviews, in three countries (the US, Germany, and France) between 1963 and 1967. Then fifteen of these reviews, written by historians, are analysed pragma-dialectically. The first main goal of the project is to give a more detailed and accurate description of a controversy that is often discussed or referred to, but has hardly been researched historically. Its second main goal is to gain knowledge into the precise causes of this controversy, by using the pragma-dialectical approach.
Boers, M (2007). Irreconcilable truths: Deep disagreement in Holocaust controversies. Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 159-164.
Boers, M (2007). Leaving on a jet plane: helping historians analyse their Holocaust controversies. The International Journal of the Humanities, 5.9, pp.225-234
e. Argumentative applications
Currently the only research project in the “applications” section is Argumentation and computation. The overall aim of this project is to apply the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation (van Eemeren 2010) in the growing field on the intersection of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence (Rahwan & Simari 2009). The initial focus is on establishing a systematic and broad theoretical foundation to facilitate the development of more concrete applications in the future. As part of his PhD project, Jacky Visser specifies a computational representation of the ideal model of a critical discussion. This ideal model is at the basis of the pragma-dialectical theory and forms the starting point for further contributions on, e.g., computer-supported reconstruction of argumentative discourse; contextualisation of generic models of persuasion in multi-agent systems to take account of rhetorical devices and institutionalised preconditions for argumentation; decision-making software to support political, medical and legal practices; diagramming software to visualise argumentation for educational purposes.
Visser, J., F. Bex, C. Reed & B. Garssen (2011). Correspondence between the pragma-dialectical discussion model and the argument interchange format. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 23(36), 189-224.