Argumentation and persuasion

Transcription

1 Communicative effectiveness Argumentation and persuasion Lesson 12 Fri 8 April, 2016

2 Persuasion Discourse can have many different functions. One of these is to convince readers or listeners of something. This is called the persuasive function of discourse.

3 Persuasion Since classical rhetoric, three main factors have been distinguished in persuading an audience: logos, ethos, and pathos. The logos is the argumentation itself, with its structure and rules. The ethos is the personality of the orator and all the aspects that can enhance his or her credibility, such as reputation and social status. The pathos refers to all the emotions that an orator may evoke in the audience.

4 What is an argument? Argument (Oxford dictionaries)

5 Argumentation Argumentation is the linguistic process of reasoning in a systematic way in support of (or against) an idea, an action or a theory. More specifically, argumentation is about justifying or challenging validity claims of truth (what should be considered to be true) and normative rightness (what should be done). X is the case! X is not the case! X should be done! X should not be done!

6 Argumentation Argumentation can be studied from different analytical perspectives. The three approaches we are going to discuss today are: a) Functional analysis of argumentation, which focuses on the structure of arguments. b) Content-related analysis of argumentation, which focuses on the content of arguments. c) Sound vs fallacious argumentation, which focuses on the rules of rational dispute (and their violation).

7 Functional analysis of argumentation Stephen Toulmin (1969) elaborated a functional model of argumentation, which includes three basic elements and three additional elements: modality data warrant claim backing rebuttal

8 Functional analysis of argumentation Claim: the statement in question, which has to be justified. Data: the evidence, the facts used to prove the claim. Warrant (or conclusion rule): the principle that leads from the data to the claim (like a metaphorical bridge). Backing: a statement that supports the warrant. Rebuttal: a counter-claim that (partially) contradicts the main claim or the warrant. Modality: it qualifies or limits the strength of the claim.

9 Functional analysis of argumentation Example (validity claim of truth): Probably (modality) I can see a red glow on the hill (data) Red glows indicate fire (warrant) There is a fire on the hill (claim) Like with the embers in a fireplace (backing) Unless the glow is an artificial light (rebuttal)

10 Functional analysis of argumentation Example (validity claim of normative rightness): Definitely (modality) There is a fire on the hill (data) In case of fire one should call the firemen (warrant) We should call the firemen (claim) As they teach you in school (backing) Or we put out the fire ourselves (rebuttal)

11 Functional analysis of argumentation Argumentation is frequently enthymemic, i.e. not all (six) components are always linguistically manifest. Activity: try to transform the following claims into complete arguments: 1. Rome is the most beautiful city in the world. 2. Only educated people should be allowed to vote. 3. Marijuana should be legalised. 4. Animals have rights. 5. Public transport should be free for everyone.

12 Formal analysis of argumentation Activity: read the text in Handout G and reconstruct the underlying argument using Toulmin s model. modality data warrant claim backing rebuttal

13 Content-related analysis of argumentation In the content-related analysis of argumentation the focus is on the content of arguments, not so much on their functional structure. More precisely, the aim of this kind of analysis is to identify those warrants (also called conclusion rules) which are recurring or conventional for specific discourses, social contexts, fields of social action, etc. These are called topos (Greek for place ; plural: topoi). They can be formalised as follows: if/because X, then Y.

14 Content-related analysis of argumentation Content-related analysis of argumentation is particularly relevant in critical discourse studies, because it serves to identify those warrants (also called conclusion rules) that have become highly conventionalised argumentative schemes in discourses promoting xenophobia, racism, discrimination, exclusion, nationalism, populism, and so on.

15 Content-related analysis of argumentation Here are some examples of topoi that are typical of discourses on immigration: We should close our borders for immigrants and refugees, Italy is full! The (implicit) warrant is: if a country is burdened by specific problems, then action should be taken to diminish these burdens. This warrant corresponds to a topos of burdening.

16 Content-related analysis of argumentation Another example: We should welcome immigrants, just like the USA welcomed Italian immigrants in the past giving them the opportunity to prosper. The (implicit) warrant is: because history teaches us that specific actions have specific consequences, one should act in accordance with that. This is a topos of history.

17 Content-related analysis of argumentation Another example: The government should limit the influx of migrants. Otherwise the Italian people will never feel safe again. The (implicit) warrant is: if there are specific dangers and threats, one should do something against them. This warrant constitutes a topos of threat/danger.

18 Content-related analysis of argumentation Another example: It s high time to take effective measures against rising immigration. The European Union requires us to do so. The (implicit) warrant is: if a recognised authority says that X is true / should be done, then X is true / should be done. This is a topos of authority.

19 Sound vs fallacious argumentation As we know, the basic purpose of argumentation is to persuade. However, this can be achieved either by convincing somebody by sound and valid arguments, or by influencing them suggestively and manipulatively by fallacies. X is the case. Why? Because of A, B and C. Y should be done. Why? Because I said so!

20 Sound vs fallacious argumentation In order to distinguish sound from fallacious argumentation, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992, 2004) have elaborated the pragma-dialectical approach. Argumentation is seen as a part of a discussion in which the participants (the protagonist and the antagonist) advance their claims (called standpoints) and defend them from criticism. According to this approach, every rational dispute aimed to resolve a difference of opinion between two discussants should follow ten basic rules.

21 Sound vs fallacious argumentation The ten commandments for rational dispute are: 1) The freedom rule: discussants may not prevent each other from advancing or from calling standpoints into questions. 2) The obligation-to-defend rule: Discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this standpoint when requested to do so. 3) The standpoint rule: A standpoint that has not actually been put forward by the other discussant cannot be attacked.

22 Sound vs fallacious argumentation 4) The relevance rule: Standpoints may not be defended by argumentation that is not relevant to the standpoint. 5) The unexpressed premise rule: Discussants may not falsely attribute unexpressed premises to the other party. 6) The starting-point rule: Discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted starting point. 7) The validity rule: Reasoning that in an argumentation is presented as formally conclusive must be logically valid.

23 Sound vs fallacious argumentation 8) The argument scheme rule: Standpoints may be regarded as conclusively defended only if the defense takes place by means of appropriate argument schemes. 9) The concluding rule: Inconclusive defenses of standpoints may not lead to maintaining these standpoints. 10) The general language use rule: Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they may not deliberately misinterpret the other discussant s formulations.

24 Sound vs fallacious argumentation The traditional conception of fallacy is an invalid or incorrect argument, like the following one: A. All horses are mortal. B. Socrates is mortal. C. Therefore Socrates is a horse. The pragma-dialectical approach proposes a more complete definition: every violation of the ten rules of rational dispute constitutes a fallacy, because it can make the resolution of a difference of opinion more difficult, or even impossible.

25 Examples of fallacies X is the case. I won t argue with you, you re out of your mind. Discrediting the opponent is a violation of (1) the freedom rule (discussants may not prevent each other from advancing or from calling standpoints into questions). This fallacy is called argumentum ad hominem.

26 Examples of fallacies X is the case. Why is that? You should know. Refusing to defend one s standpoint is a violation of (2) the obligation-to- defend rule (discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this standpoint when requested to do so). This is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

27 Examples of fallacies X should be done. Why is that? Because everyone loves me! Using non-argumentative means of persuasion (such as playing on the emotions of the audience) is a violation of (4) the relevance rule (standpoints may not be defended by argumentation that is not relevant to the standpoint). This fallacy is called argumentum ad populum.

28 Examples of fallacies X should be done. Why is that? Because X should be done. Advancing argumentation that amounts to the same thing as the standpoint is a violation of (6) the starting point rule (discussants may not falsely present something as an accepted starting point). This fallacy is called begging the question.

29 Examples of fallacies X is the case. Why is that? Because my mom said so. Presenting a standpoint is as right because an authority says it is right is a violation of (7) the validity rule (reasoning that in an argumentation is presented as formally conclusive must be logically valid). This fallacy is called argumentum ad verecundiam.

30 Examples of fallacies X is the case. Defending a standpoint in an unclear or ambiguous way is a violation of (10) the general language use rule (discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous). This is called fallacy of unclarity. Why is that? Because X is the same as Y, but not exactly the same

31 Sound vs fallacious argumentation The pragma-dialectical model of acceptable argumentation is based on a philosophical ideal of reasonableness. In practice, however, even a discourse that is clearly argumentative will in many respects not correspond to that ideal model of a critical discussion, or at least not explicitly, completely, and immediately. Therefore, argumentative reality must be investigated empirically, so that it becomes clear how argumentative discourse is in fact conducted.