ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ Verbs Of Appearance And Argument Schemes: Italian Sembrare As An Argumentative Indicator

• by: Johanna Miecznikowski & Elena Musi, Istituto di Studi italiani, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Switzerland

Abstract: This paper investigates the role of verbs of appearance as argumentative indicators analysing the uses of the Italian verb sembrare (‘seem’) in a sample of 40 texts chosen from a corpus of reviews, editorials and comment posts. An analysis conducted within the framework of the Argumentum Model of Topics, shows that the verb, in its evidential-inferential uses, indicates specific argument schemes of the symptomatic as well as the causal type.
Keywords: argumentative indicators, Argumentum Model of Topics, causal argumentation, inferential evidentiality, Pragma-Dialectics, symptomatic argumentation, syntagmatic argument schemes, verbs of appearance

1. Introduction
This paper addresses the relations between verbs of appearance and argument schemes, taking as an example the Italian verb sembrare (‘to seem’) in its function as an argumentative indicator[i]. In the framework of Pragma-Dialectics, the notion of argumentative indicators has been defined as including “all words and expressions that refer to any of the moves that are significant to the argumentation process” (van Eemeren, Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007, p. 2). Such argumentative clues can belong to different classes of linguistic items, ranging from verbs to conjunctions and to various kinds of discourse markers[ii]. Within Pragma-Dialectics, argumentative indicators have been considered, above all, from the point of view of the analyst facing the task of argumentative reconstruction. In this perspective, it has been underlined that indicators may work at different levels, signaling, for example, the engagement of the interactants in a particular stage of a critical discussion[iii], argumentative moves or the presence of a particular argumentation scheme. From a linguistic point of view, it is crucial to acknowledge that the usefulness of indicators for the analyst depends on their usefulness for the participants engaged in an argumentative interaction. Like other aspects of textual or conversational structure, the construction of argumentative relations at the different levels mentioned above is, in the first place, the participants’ task; functional categories are emic, not etic (Pike 1954). What justifies the attribution of an indicator function to a linguistic expression is, then, the potential of the expression to guide interlocutors and readers in this task. In any particular context, this potential will depend both on the expression’s functions coded in a relatively stable manner in the linguistic system (e.g. in the lexicon or in the domain of recurrent syntactic constructions and discourse routines) and on the specific pragmatic configuration (Bazzanella & Miecznikowski 2009) the expression is used in. As we will argue in our paper, corpus-based linguistic analysis, focused on single expressions and their contexts of occurrence, can fruitfully contribute to a better understanding of argumentative indicators in this sense. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ Epideictic As A Condition Of Disagreement

• by: Ingrid Mayeur & Loïc Nicolas, Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres, GRAL, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium

Abstract: Our paper aims to examine several aspects of the epideictic genre according to the tradition of the Brussels School of Rhetoric. We study, at first, the confused notions as a specific material for the rhetorical art, and, in particular, for the epideictic genre as they contribute to create the social concord. Then, we establish a relationship between disagreement and epideictic genre after the Perelman’s New Rhetoric. Here, our idea is to show how disagreement feeds the argumentative nature of this third rhetorical genre. In a democratic society, the epideictic genre needs to work well to allow disagreement; and likewise, disagreement requires always a well-functioning epideictic. According to Perelman, if the epideictic genre constitutes the foundations of the rhetorical system, or even its “crowning”, it is also the center, the mobile part of this system, in other words: its limbs.
Keywords: Chaim Perelman, confused notions, concord, disagreement, epideictic genre, Eugène Dupréel, rationality, rhetoric.

1. Introduction
Our paper aims to examine several aspects of the epideictic genre according to the tradition of the “Brussels School of Rhetoric” started with Eugène Dupréel and Chaim Perelman. We study how, in the epideictic genre, the “confused notions” contribute to create social concord. The relationship between disagreement and epideictic genre in Perelman’s New Rhetoric will then be considered to show how disagreement feeds the argumentative nature of this third rhetorical genre.

To start with, taking as a frame the perspective of Emmanuelle Danblon, in which rhetoric is a technè and the orator is a craftsman, we would like to show how the “confused notions” (in the sense given by Eugène Dupréel) could be shaped in a specific way, according to the desired rhetorical purpose, to become efficient tools, which will be destined to a “good use” by the orator.

2. “Using value” of confused notions and its role in the epideictic genre
2.1. Origins of the confused notions
Already before the First World War, Eugène Dupréel had suggested a re-establishment of the “confused thought”, wishing to exceed the classical dichotomy clarity vs. darkness. Confusion and instability, like clarity and stability, are essential components of some notions, especially values as justice, happiness, merit or freedom. In Dupréel’s conception, notions are not a reflection of the world but a tool with an acting value:
Avant d’être classées comme connaissances claires ou confuses, les connaissances servent à quelque chose, à la vie des individus et des sociétés; les mensonges même ont leur utilité, on ne les produirait pas sans cela. La connaissance est donc une valeur d’action. […] Une notion, tout ce que désigne un mot ou une phrase, cela n’est pas élaboré par un souci de correspondance avec un objet réel, c’est un instrument dont on se sert et dont la valeur se mesure d’abord à son rendement. (Dupréel, 1949, p. 332).

Before being classified as clear or confused knowledge, knowledge is used to something, in the lives of persons and societies; lies even have their uses, they will not happen without it. Knowledge is therefore an acting value. […]. A notion, everything that refers to a word or phrase, is not developed by a desire to match with a real object; it is a tool that is used and its value is measured primarily to performance[i]. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ A Means-End Classification Of Argumentation Schemes

• by: Fabrizio Macagno - ArgLab, Instituto de Filosofia da Nova, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisboa

Abstract: One of the crucial problems of argumentation schemes as illustrated in (Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008) is their practical use for the purpose of analyzing texts and producing arguments. For this purpose, argumentation schemes will be analyzed as prototypical combinations between two distinct levels of abstraction, i.e. semantic (or material) relations and types of reasoning. These two levels can justify an end-means criterion of classification, representing the intended purpose of an argument and the means to achieve it. This criterion is strictly bound to the pragmatic purpose of an argumentative move and the ontological (semantic) structure of the conclusion and the premises.
Keywords: abstraction, argument, argumentation schemes, classification, semantic relations, types of reasoning

1. Introduction
Argumentation schemes have been developed in argumentation theory as stereotypical patterns of inference, abstract structures representing the material (semantic) relation and logical relation between the premises and a conclusion in an argument. They can be regarded as the modern interpretation and reconsideration of the ancient maxims of inference (Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008; Walton & Macagno, 2006). Many authors in the last fifty years have proposed different sets and classifications of schemes (see Hastings, 1963; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969; Kienpointner, 1992a, 1992b; Walton, 1996; Grennan, 1997; Walton, Reed & Macagno, 2008; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). These approaches raise crucial problems concerning the criteria used for distinguishing and classifying the schemes, and defining the structure of an argumentation scheme. These apparently purely philosophical questions are becoming increasingly important for practical purposes, in particular the application of the schemes to the field of education (Macagno & Konstantinidou, 2013; Nussbaum, 2011; Duschl, 2008; Kim, Robert Anthony & Blades, 2012; Rapanta, Garcia-Mila, & Gilabert, 2013) and Artificial Intelligence (Mochales & Moens, 2009; 2011).

The purpose of this paper is to address the problem of classifying the schemes starting from the analysis of their nature and structure. The different components of the natural patterns of arguments will be distinguished, and in particular the quasi-logical and the semantic levels. These distinctions will be used to show the shortcomings of the existing classifications, and to propose a new model based on the pragmatic purpose of an argument, which is regarded as a move (speech act) in a dialogue.

1. Types of reasoning and semantic-ontological connections
The relationship between the premises and the conclusion of an argument can be reconstructed based on generic principles. What guarantees the inferential passage is a specific major premise that includes the predicates occurring in the minor premise and the conclusion. In order to reconstruct and motivate the inferential structure, we need to distinguish the specific principle of inference from two other different levels: 1) the general rules of inference, i.e. the generic, semantic-ontological connections between the predicates of the argument that establish the acceptability of an argument; and 2) the logical rules governing the formal disposition of the terms or propositions in an argument, i.e. the rules of commitment establishing the acceptance of an argument. These levels of abstraction will be referred to as “specific topoi,” “generic topoi,” and “rules of commitment” (or logical rules). Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ The Evaluative And Unifying Function Of Emotions Emerging In Argumentation: Interactional And Inferential Analysis In Highly Specialized Medical Consultations Concerning The Disclosure Of A Bad News

• by: Margherita Luciani, Institute of Argumentation, Linguistics and Semiotics, University of Lugano, Switzerland

Abstract: This paper investigates the functions of emotions in decision-making processes following the disclosure of a bad news in medical argumentation, by taking into account suggestions from psychology and argumentation. I embrace the hypothesis that emotions, due to their capability of unifying the objects of our thought, strongly contribute to reasonable decisions. I claim that a proof that hints to this can be found at the interactional as well as at the inferential level of analysis.
Keywords: Argumentum Model of Topics, bad news, decision-making processes, doctor-patient interaction, emotions, inferential structure, interactional analysis

1. Introduction
Emotions plays a crucial role in doctor-patient interactions, especially in case of bad news’ disclosure; in such highly emotive frameworks a competent usage of emotions through communication strategies can really make the difference in improving patients’ acceptability of heavy treatments and of diseases’ consequences. This competence is often strongly influenced by doctors’ ability to handle in an adequate way their own emotions as well as by the ability to take into account patients’ possible emotive reactions. However, it is not often the case that doctors are able to reach a fruitful communication and an adequate handling of emotions, and this leads to misunderstandings and produces undesired emotive and cognitive reactions in patients. Two are the main approaches to doctor-patient interaction which can be found in literature, namely the patient-centred approach and the disease-centred approach (Bensing, 2000; Mead & Bower, 2000).

This paper aims to contribute to the study of doctor-patient interactions’ dynamics by connecting existing studies in health communication and psychology with argumentation studies, in order to demonstrate the crucial role of argumentatively played out emotions. For what concerns the theoretical and methodological framework, we follow the Pragma-Dialectical approach (Eemeren van, 2004) for the interactional analysis and the Argumentum Model of Topics (henceforth AMT) for the analysis of the inferential structures of arguments (Rigotti, 2009; Rigotti & Greco Morasso, 2010).
In medical argumentation studies there is a gap in the analysis of doctors’ argumentatively played out emotions, which concerns both the interactional as well as the inferential level of analysis. The reasons why doctors’ emotions emerging in argumentation during this type of communicative practice have a strong influence in patients’ acceptability of treatments and of disease consequences remain still unclear.

In this study I propose to combine a fine-grained argumentative and inferential analysis of doctors’ experienced emotions in doctor-patient interactions concerning the disclosure of a bad news. Three are the main aims of this paper. Firstly, I set out to explore the role of doctors’ argumentatively played out emotions in the management of the painful communication and of the subsequent patients’ decision-making processes. Secondly, I will investigate the importance for doctors to take into consideration the possible patients’ emotions and the importance of arguing in favor of them, and lastly I will prove that emotions have an evaluative and unifying function which can be retrieved in the inferential structure of arguments. Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ Practical Reasoning And Multi-Party Deliberation: The Best, The Good Enough And The Necessary

• by: Marcin Lewinski, ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy, FCSH, Universidade Nova de Lisboa,Portugal

Abstract: In this paper, I elaborate the complex scheme of practical reasoning by proposing its context-independent and context-dependent elements. Further, I focus on its means-goal premise (“We should do X, because X leads to Y, and Y is desirable”). I argue that the practical inference can be licenced in three basic ways: when “X leads to” signifies a necessary means, the best means or the means that is good enough.
Keywords: argumentation schemes, inference licence, optimising, practical reasoning, satisficing

We deliberate not about ends but about what contributes to ends. […] Having set the end [deliberators] consider how and by what means it is to be attained; and if it seems to be produced by several means they consider by which it is most easily and best produced. (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1112b12-15)

One’s choice is rational only if one did not recognize clearly better reasons for choosing any of one’s forgone alternatives. (Schmidtz, 1995, p. 38)

1. Introduction
Practical reasoning (PR) is reasoning about what (to intent) to do, as opposed to theoretical reasoning, reasoning about what (to believe) is the case. When expressed in language, PR takes the form of practical argumentation (PA), which has been analysed as a separate argument scheme with its own set of premises, inference rules and critical questions (e.g. Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012; Feteris, 2002; Ihnen Jory, 2012; Walton, 2006; 2007).[i]

In this paper, I propose a detailed scheme of complex PA which, while building on previous proposals (esp. Fairclough & Fairclough, 2012), clearly lays out the context-independent and context-dependent elements of PA. I elaborate the scheme by focusing in particular on its causal or means-goal premise (“Let’s do X, because X leads to Y, and Y is desirable”). This premise is crucial, as it points to an inference licencing our step from the premises to the conclusion that X is the reasoned action to be taken. I will argue that in principle, when acting rationally, we are licensed to do three things: the best thing, the thing good enough or the necessary thing. Which of the three applies (and whether it obtains) is determined contextually in deliberation with others who might suggest alternative options. In this way, we end up with a multi-party deliberation where different alternative options are advocated by different parties to argumentation.

2. Practical reasoning as practical argumentation
Aristotle is credited with providing one of the first methodical accounts of PR and deliberation. It has been argued that he was deliberately vague on the distinction between private (internal) and public (collective) deliberation as chief activities of practical reason, in order to expose “a deep analogy between his conceptions of the two domains” (Dascal, 2005, p. 52). Indeed, the limits of private PR can be overcome or reduced by engaging others: “We call in others to aid us in deliberation on important questions, distrusting ourselves as not being equal to deciding” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1112b11).

Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca take up these arguments and claim not only simple similarity between public and private deliberation but rather primacy of the former over the latter:
[…] inward deliberation […] appears to be constructed on the model of deliberation with others. Hence, we must expect to find carried over to this inner deliberation most of the problems associated with the conditions necessary for discussion with others. […] Accordingly, from our point of view, it is by analyzing argumentation addressed to others that we can best understand self-deliberation, and not vice versa. (1969, pp. 14, 41) Read more

ISSA Proceedings 2014 ~ Analyzing Political Discourse In Georgia: A Critical Discourse-Analytical Perspective On Political Imageries And Means-Goal Arguments

• by: Mariam Keburia - Faculty of Humanities Ivane Javakhishvili, Tbilisi State University, Georgia

Abstract: Georgia has undergone remarkable socio-economic changes and political unrest on its difficult road to statehood. Re-establishing itself from the collapsed Soviet Union as an independent, sovereign state has been a painful process. This paper looks at number of speeches delivered by the political leader of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili (presidential term: 2004-2013) in order to analyze argumentative public communication, focusing on how practical arguments in favour of the advocated policies are developed in the selected speeches.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, Georgia, practical argumentation

1. Introduction
This article analyzes Georgian political discourse, namely annual report speeches of the Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili (presidential term 2004-2013) delivered at the Parliament of Georgia. It draws particular attention to practical arguments and rhetorical devices used in the selected political texts. Although President Saakashvili is acknowledged as a charismatic and persuasive public speaker, I argue that his speeches reveal lack of argumentative communication and fail to suggest a clear political vision while strongly advocating policies.

Over the past two decades, republic of Georgia has undergone remarkable socio-economic and political changes. Re-establishing itself from the collapsed Soviet Union as an independent state has been a painful and rather complex process. The recent history of the country has included the overthrow of communism, revolutionary change of the government and the first constitutional transfer of power through elections (leading to the so called ‘cohabitation’). Georgia’s shift from a former soviet republic into an independent state has been analysed within various disciplines. Historical timeline and accompanying processes have been observed in terms of social or political studies, identity and ideology related debate and other fields of research. In recent times, there has been growing interest in applying discourse analysis to study politics and power. According to the Constitution of Georgia, “The president is authorised to address people and the Parliament, and once a year submits a report to parliament on the most important issues concerning the state”. The present paper looks into 7 institutional the speeches delivered by the president of Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili to the supreme legislative body of the country. I am primarily interested in identifying practical arguments in the selected political texts and analyzing relevant schemes pursuant to Critical Discourse Analysis. This paper addresses the following questions: What particular argument schemes is the arguer using to justify particular lines of action (policies)? How can these arguments be evaluated from a dialectical and rhetorical perspectives?

The article will first discuss analytical framework of the research, that is of Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough 2010) and particularly the more recent version of CDA that gives primacy to practical argumentation and deliberation in political discourse (Fairclough and Fairclough 2012). Critical Discourse Analysis is especially relevant due to the focus it has on texts and its encouragement to have a dialogue between disciplines while conducting analysis. Second, I continue with the analysis of 7 institutional speeches with specific attention to practical arguments in favour of the advocated policies – how practical argumentation scheme is used to legitimize foreign policy and implemented and/or planned reforms. Read more