Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing. Jaargang 28

[p. 67]

Abstracts Volume 28 no. 1 2006

Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Strategic manoeuvring, the model of a critical discussion and conventional acitivity types

ABSTRACT: After a brief expose of the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentative discourse, we concentrate on the tension inherent in argumentative discourse between the pursuit of success and the maintenance of reasonableness. We elaborate on our earlier claim that this tension leads to ‘strategic manoeuvring’ that can be explained by making use of insights from dialectic and rhetoric. As a new step in the treatment of strategic manoeuvring we take account of the fact that the manoeuvring always takes place in one of the various argumentative ‘activity types’ that can be distinguished in argumentative practice. Unlike theoretical constructs such as a critical discussion and other ideal models, which are based on analytic considerations regarding the most pertinent presentation of the constitutive parts of a problem-valid procedure for carrying out a particular kind of discursive task, the activity types and their associated speech events are cultural artefacts that can be identified on the basis of careful empirical observation of argumentative practice. By concentrating on three conventionalised activity types that are more or less institutionalised, we show how strategic manoeuvring is affected by the opportunities and constraints of the activity type in which it takes place.

KEYWORDS: activity type, adjudication, critical discussion, mediation, negotiation, pragma-dialectics, rhetoric, strategic manoeuvring

Eveline T. Feteris
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Complex argumentation on the basis of goals and consequences in the application of legal rules

ABSTRACT: In this article I develop an instrument for the reconstruction of argumentation in which a legal decision is justified by referring to the consequences of application of the rule from the perspective of the goal of the rule. To explain which considerations must play a role in the reconstruction I use the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. I develop a model for the reconstruction with the aim of clarifying which choices are underlying the justification of a legal decision in which a judge refers to goals and consequences and I establish how these choices can be made explicit in an adequate way. I apply this model by reconstructing two examples from legal practice. I show that the model forms

[p. 68]

a heuristic and critical tool in the analysis and evaluation of this complex form of argumentation.

KEYWORDS: legal argumentation, pragmatic argumentation, goal argumentation, teleological-evaluative argumentation, legal interpretation.

Antoine Braet
University of Leiden, The Netherlands
The list of fallacies in Aristotle's Rhetoric 2.24

ABSTRACT:

The list of ten fallacies in Aristotle's Rhetoric 2.24 shows a heterogeneous character. Four different sources of fallacies may be distinguished. 1 Ambiguity of language arising from quasi-argumentative expressions or other semantic shortcomings. 2 Irrelevance of statements. 3 Unacceptable argumentations arising from incorrect use of topical principles which may be reduced to argumentation schemes. 4 Formal invalidity of the reasoning. Strangely enough, Aristotle - unlike the author of the Rhetoric to Alexander - does not discuss at all fallacies in term of critical questions connected to argumentation schemes.

KEY WORDS: Aristotle. Fallacies. Topics. Argumentation schemes.

Lettica Hustinx, Renske van Enschot and Hans Hoeken
Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Argument quality and persuasion in the Elaboration Likelihood Model: which dimensions play a role?

ABSTRACT: Research by Petty and Cacioppo has found that the attitude of highly involved participants is influenced by argument quality, but that of less involved participants is not. However, they did not distinguish argument valence and argument strength, which support the desirability respectively the probability of the effects of the proposed policy. We conducted an experiment in which we systematically manipulated the variables involvement (high and low), argument valence (strong, weak), and argument strength (strong, weak). The results show that texts with strong valence arguments are more persuasive than texts with weak valence arguments, but this difference doesn't apply for strength arguments. Moreover, involvement does not interact with the other variables. These findings are in accordance with a preceding study (Van Enschot, Hustinx & Hoeken, 2003). We argue that the strength aspect of an argument is more hidden from the eye of the observer.

KEY WORDS: persuasion, argument quality, strength, valence, involvement