The concept of interpretation refers to:

— The general process of understanding complex text, S. Interpretation, Exegesis, Hermeneutics.
— In rhetorical argumentation, the word interpretation can refer to:

1. 1. A special kind of stasis.
   2. A figure of repetition.
   3. An argument scheme, S. Motives ant Reasons

1. Stasis of interpretation

In stasis theory, the stasis of interpretation corresponds to a special case of contradiction between the parties, the “legal question”. In court, or, more broadly, whenever a debate is based on a written text, and especially a normative rule, a “question of interpretation” arises when the two parties base their conclusions on different readings of the text. One party, for example, may base their argument on the letter of the law, whilst the others will argue from its spirit.

2. A figure of repetition

As a figure of discourse, interpretation consists in duplicating a first term in the form of an immediately following second term, quasi-synonymous and more easily understood than the first. In the sequence “Term₁, Term₂”, T₂ interprets T₁, i.e., explains; clarifies the meaning of T₁. T₂ can be a common language equivalent of a technical term T₁:

We found marasmius oreades, I mean, Scotch Bonnets.

The interpretation applied to a word or an entire expression may maintain its argumentative orientation:

The President announced an expenditure control policy, a “sober state” policy.

Phrased by an opponent, the interpretation can reverse the argumentative orientation of T₁:

The President announced an expenditure control policy, that is, a policy of austerity.

This change is marked by the introduction of a reformulation connective (one might say an interpretive connective): in other words, i.e., that is to say, which means that…

3. Refutation by interpretation

The Treatise on Argumentation classifies the interpretatio as a “figure of choice”, and offers an example borrowed from Marcus Annaeus Seneca, (known as the Seneca the Elder, or the Rhetorician). Seneca the Elder is the author of the Controversies, a collection of more or less imaginary judicial cases, treated by different rhetors of his time (1st century), in a kind of speech contest.

Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca’s example is taken from the first case of the collection ([1958] p. 233), where the question proposed to a score of expert orators is an ingenious story of a son who fed his uncle despite his father’s ban. The wheel of fortune having turned, it is now the father who is in difficulty, and the son has now fed his father in spite of his uncle’s prohibition. The unhappy son is thus driven out for the same reason, first by the father, then by the uncle. In the following passage, the author reports the words of the lawyers addressing the father on the son’s behalf, first Fuscus Arellius, then Cestius:

Arellius Fuscus, in concluding, suggested, as a question: ‘I thought that, in spite of your prohibition, you wanted your brother to be fed: you had this air in pronouncing your defense, or at least I believed.’ Cestius was bolder: he did not just say ‘I thought you wanted it’, he said, ‘You wanted it and you still want it today’, and by means of this figure, he pointed to all the motives which forced [the father to want it so] [and concluded:] ‘Why do you drive me away? Doubtless you are indignant at the fact that I took your part’.
Seneca the Elder, or the Rhetorician (54 BC – 39 AD),
[Controversies and suasories], (written at the end of his life).[1]

The interventions of the two lawyers are co-oriented. Fuscus Arellius argues that the father may have given his order reluctantly. Cestius then goes farther, and attributes to the father an intention contrary to his words, “you wanted it and you still want it today”. Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca see here an “argumentative figure or a stylistic figure depending on the effect it has on the audience” ([1958], p. 172), S. Figure. Actually, the counsel’s words are clearly argumentative. Firstly, they introduce a typical stasic situation, a question about the qualification of the act under examination, “you wanted me to disobey you. So, don’t punish me, rather congratulate me in having accomplished your secret wish!” S. Stasis. Second, it implements the private vs. public scheme, substituting the private, sincere, will, to the publicly affirmed will, made under social pressure, S. Motives.

4. Refutation by interpretation vs. performative analysis

The discussion of this example involves the analysis of the order as a performative act. Interpretation is an instrument of refutation and defense that, interestingly, opposes a charge based on a performative analysis of such a speech act. Austin illustrates his discovery of performativity with an example borrowed from the Hippolytus of Euripides (I, 612). According to Austin, an order, is valid as soon as it is uttered, regardless of what the speaker is actually thinking:

Surely the words must be spoken ‘seriously’ and so as to be taken ‘seriously’? […]. But we are apt to have a feeling that their being serious consists in their being uttered as (merely) the outward and visible sign, for convenience or other record or for information, of an inward and spiritual act: from which it is but a short step to go on to believe or to assume without realizing that for many purposes the outward utterance is a description, true or false, of the occurrence of the inward performance. The classic expression of this idea is to be found in the Hippolytus (1. 612), where Hippolytus says, “my tongue swore to, but my heart (or mind or other backstage artiste) did not”. Thus “I promise to…” obliges me — puts on record my spiritual assumption of a spiritual shackle.
It is gratifying to observe in this very example how excess of profundity, or rather solemnity, at once paves the way for immorality. (Austin, 1962, p. 9-10)

As the son and the father in Seneca’s example, Hippolytus and the nurse, are engaged in highly argumentative interactions. In such situations, semantics, pragmatics, and morality can all be discussed and argued. The son acknowledges the facts (he fed his uncle) and pleads not guilty to the charge of disobedience, maintaining that the verbal order, what the father said, did not expressed the true will of the father. This is exemplary of the case of opposition described by Austin, which exists between what language actually does and what goes on in the mind of the speaker. It should be noted first that Austin’s binary distinction knows only the verbal aspects of language, and excludes all paraverbal (mimic) modalization of the order.

There remains the question of the validity of the father’s prohibition. For the father and for Austin, the prohibition is valid because the father uttered the relevant formula, and the son is guilty of the double Austinian sin, analytical fallacy and moral perversity. Yet the analysis offered by the Austinian father is rather questionable; what the father really said is problematic and must be subject to an interpretation which will takes into account the pragmatic environment of the speech act utterance. The situation is analogous to that of ironic utterances, S. Irony. The addressee hears something contextually incongruous, said by someone who usually talks seriously, and this forces him to engage in interpretation of this puzzling utterance. Similarly, the father uttered a prohibition which contradicts the natural (doxic) law of brotherly love, which the son esteems inconsistent with his father’s true character; the son is obliged to interpret the incongruity — maybe the verbal utterance of the father was accompanied by a paralinguistic sign, which pointed to another intention? He thus infers that the order was not given in the true, natural voice of the father but in his social voice, as argued by Fuscus Arelius. As a consequence, the son feeds his uncle. To decide that this latter interpretation is “the right one” is to side with the son and oppose the father; to decide that the Austinian interpretation is the correct one is to take the side of the father and oppose the son. In either case, to take a stand for an analysis is to side with a party or another.

---

[1] Translated after the French edition used by Perelman, Sénèque le Rhéteur, Controverses et Suasoires. Trans. by H. Bornecque. T. 1. Paris: Garnier Frères, 1932, p. 23-24. https://archive.org/details/ControversesEtSuasoiresTraditionNouvelleTexteRevueParM.HenriBornecque

---

 

Rhetorical approaches to argumentation focus on monological data; dialectical approaches, focus on conventionalized dialogues; interactional approaches to apply to everyday argumentation, when needed, the concepts and methods of verbal interaction analysis. Argumentation is necessarily two-sided, developing both as a monological and as an interactional activity, and it would be pointless to oppose these two kinds of argumentative activities. Argumentative questions can be relevantly discussed under a variety of speech formats, from the philosophical treatise to the internet forum and dinner conversation, S. Argumentation (I).

1. Interaction, dialogue, argumentative dialogue

Ordinary exchanges, dialogues and conversations are two special kinds of verbal interactions. Verbal interactions are characterized by the use of oral language, the physical presence of face-to-face interlocutors, and a key feature, the organized, continuous chain of alternate turns of speaking.

Dialogue is practiced first among humans, and, by extension, between humans and machines. This is not necessarily the case for interaction: particles interact, they do not engage in dialogue. Human interactions are both verbal and non-verbal. One can reject a dialogue, but one cannot reject interaction. Social organizations necessarily interact; they can open dialogues in view of promoting their respective interests or solving their disputes.

Dialogue is chiefly verbal with some nonverbal aspects, and this implies a kind of egalitarian situation. The concept of interaction takes the inequalities of the participants’ social statuses and their specific participations in the ongoing common task into account. It focuses on the coordination between language and other forms of action (collaborative or competitive) carried out by the participants, in complex material environments, including manipulation of objects. Language at work is interactional, not dialogical or conversational; conversations at work exclude work.

The interactive perspective paved the way for the study of argumentation in the work place or its role in the acquisition and development of scientific knowledge in labwork activities, where argumentative sequences are produced as regulatory episodes, in coordination with the manipulation of objects.

Dialogue has an “about-ness”, which makes it quite distinct from ordinary conversation, which tends to jump from topic to topic. In ordinary usage, the word dialogue has a quasi-prescriptive positive orientation: dialogue is good, we need dialogue. The philosophies of dialogue have a marked humanistic color. Personalities open to dialogue are opposed to the fundamentalists, closed to dialogue. When two parties enter into dialogue they commit to negotiating; breaking the dialogue may give way to violence. In this sense, as can be seen from the title of Tannen’s book, The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue (1998), debate, as a potentially acrimonious and vindictive argument_2 quasi-deprived of argumentation, can be contrasted with reasoned dialogue. We see a progress in the transition from the first to the second.

The formal approaches of argumentation as a dialogue game first appeared in the second half of the twentieth century, as a development of the Aristotelian dialectical rules. S. Dialectic; Logics of dialogue.

2. Dialogism and polyphony

The concepts of dialogism, polyphony and intertextuality make it possible to apply the interaction-based vision of argumentation to monological argumentative discourses and written texts more generally. Monological discourse is defined as a possibly long and complex, spoken or written, one-speaker discourse.

Socrates defines thinking, in its very essence, as a dialogue,

a talk which the soul has with itself about the objects under its consideration. (Theaetetus, 189e) [1]

This definition can be exploited to characterize thought as an argumentative process (in natural language).

2.1 Dialogism

In rhetoric, dialogism is a figure of speech featuring the direct reproduction of a dialogue as a passage in a literary or a philosophical composition.
Mikhail Bakhtin introduced the concept of dialogism, or polyphony, to refer to a specific fictional arrangement. In a nineteenth century classical perspective, the fictional characters are in some way, if not the puppets of the narrator at least supervised by him or her; all of their acts and speeches are framed according to their contribution to the intrigue. In a dialogic disposition, the narrator is less dominant; the characters tend to develop autonomous discourses and are relatively free of the duty to contribute to the intrigue.

2.2 Polyphony

In music, a polyphony “consists of two or more simultaneous lines of independent melody, as opposed to a musical texture with just one voice, monophony” (Wikipedia, Polyphony)
In relation with the Bakhtinian concepts of dialogism and polyphony, the word polyphony can be used metaphorically to designate a set of phenomena corresponding globally to the monological staging of a dialogue situation, in the mouth of a single physical speaker (Ducrot, 1988), called the animator of speech, in Goffman’s vocabulary.

The theory of polyphony conceptualizes monological discourse as a polyphonic space, articulating a series of clearly identified voices, each one singing its tune, that is voicing a specific viewpoint. These voices are not attributed to identified persons, as they are in direct quotations.

The polyphonic approach to connectives and negation have proved particularly fruitful; for example, “Peter will not attend the meeting” stages two voices, the first voicing the positive “Peter will attend the meeting”, and a second one rejecting the first: “No!”; and the speaker identifies with the second voice, which is, in Goffman’s words, the Principal, assuming responsibility for the talk. S. Connective; Denying.

It is particularly worth noting that one specific Animator can develop a two-sided discourse, staging two voices, articulating arguments and counter-arguments, as in a regular argumentative two-person interaction. The argumentative dialogue is then internalized, in an inner confrontation free from the constraints associated with face-to face interaction. This is the case when, as in the theater, a character engages in a monologal deliberation. The polyphonic speaker speaks in a voice, then in another, opposed to the first, to finally reject one side of the argument and accept the other, therefore identifying with that voice.

According to Ducrot, the polyphonic speaker acts as a theater director, staging the voices, and choosing to identify with one of them, S. Role; Persuasion. This concept of identification is central to the theory of Argumentation within Language. First, the speaker sets out a range of enunciators, the sources of the points of view evoked in the utterance. In a second stage, he identifies himself or herself with one of these enunciators, this identification being marked in the grammatical structure. For example, denying implies the staging of two voices, and identification of the speaker to the denying voice (cf. supra); the same for the “P, but Q” coordination. It must be emphasized that this concept of identification is totally foreign to the psychological concept of identification that is discussed in connection with the issue of persuasion.

Polyphony is not restricted to developed monologues. A conversational turn, necessarily dialogical, can also be polyphonic, as shown by the use of negation. The possible discrepancies between the interlocutor as such (as a real person) and the interlocutor as framed by the speaker can be seen in a polyphonic perspective, S. Resumption of speech.

The two adjectives, dialogic and dialogical, both refer to dialogue. It could prove interesting to use one of these words, perhaps dialogic to cover the polyphonic and intertextual aspects of discourse on the one hand, and dialogical to cover the interaction related phenomena (including their dialogic aspects) on the other. Either way, full-blown argumentation articulates two disputing voices, it is a dialogical activity.

2.3 Intertextuality

In line with the classical monolithic vision of the speaker, rhetoric considers that the arguer is the source of the speech that he or she masters and pilots at will. According to the concept of intertextuality, speech and discourse have their own permanent reality and dynamics, preexisting to their voicing by some individual. Speakers are, as it were, second to their speech. Intertextuality decreases the role of the speaker, who is considered only as an instance of coordination and reformulation of discourses already elaborated and concretized elsewhere. The speaker is not the intellectual source of what is said, but merely the conscious or unconscious vocalizer of pre-existing contents. The discourse is not produced by the speaker, but the speaker by the discourse. This vision of the arguer as a machine to repeat and reformulate inherited arguments and points of views is particularly humbling when compared with the classical image of a creative, “inventive” orator.

In the case of argumentation, these relations of intertextuality are specifically taken into account through the notion of argumentative script, S. Script.

---

[1] Plato, Theaetetus (189-190). In Plato, Complete Works. Translated by M. J. Levett, rev. Myles Burnyeat. Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by John M. Cooper – Associate editor, D. S. Hutchinson. Indianapolis/Cambridge, Hackett. 1997.

SOCRATES:  Now by ‘thinking’ do you mean the same as I do? THEAETETUS: What do you mean by it?
SOCRATES: A talk which the soul has with itself about the objects under its consideration. Of course, I’m only telling you my idea in all ignorance; but this is the kind of picture I have of it. It seems to me that the soul when it thinks is simply carrying on a discussion in which it asks itself questions and answers them itself, affirms and denies. And when it arrives at something definite, either by a gradual process or a sudden leap, when it affirms one thing consistently and without divided counsel, we call this its judgment. So, in my view, to judge is to make a statement, and a judgment is a statement which is not addressed to another person or spoken aloud, but silently addressed to oneself. And what do you think?
THEAETETUS: I agree with that.

---

 

In law, the argument of the legislator’s intention (or teleological argument) is based not on the strict literal meaning of the law as actually expressed, but on the intention of the legislator, that is the social and historical context of the legislative act, the kind of problems the legislator wanted to address, and the solution he or she wanted to achieve. This form of argumentation is recognized as relevant, S. Juridical Logic; Strict Meaning.

1. Historical argument, genetic argument, psychological argument

The intention of the legislator can be established by an historical, or genetic argument, using the data provided by the history of the law. This history is known by the preparatory works, the “whereas” section of the law, the parliamentary debates having led to the drafting of this law, and so on. When relying on the previous state of legislation, the historical argument assumes that the legislator is conservative and that the new texts must be interpreted in the context of the legal tradition (presumption of continuity of law).

The intention of the legislator can also be sought in reference to the spirit of the law: one will then speak of a psychological argument (Tarello, quoted in Perelman 1979, 58).

2. General principles of interpretation

The scope of this class of arguments extends beyond the legal field. They can be used in relation with any written standards, when the institution recognizes the validity of an argument based not on the letter of the text but on the intention of the author. For example, in the philosophical or literary field, the interpretation of a text can appeal to the author’s intention, which is itself based on preparatory work and historical data (notes, manuscripts, declarations of the author), or on psychological data (the spirit of the work and the author’s mind at the time, as understood by the interpreter).

Such arguments are considered fallacious in structuralist literary analysis, which advocates an immanent approach of literary texts, S. Fallacy (I).

---

 

The concept of inference is a primitive, that is, it can be defined on the basis of concepts of an equal complexity, or by an example of inference taken from a special field, logic: an inference is “the derivation of a proposition (conclusion) from a set of other propositions (the premises)” (Brody 1967, p. 66-67). Inference is used to establish a new truth on the basis of truths already known or accepted.

There are two kinds of inference, inference strictly speaking and immediate inference.

— In immediate inference, the conclusion is derived from a single proposition, S. Proposition.
— Strictly speaking, inference is based upon several propositions, its premises. Traditional logic distinguishes between deductive inference (deduction) and inductive inference (induction). In Aristotle’s vision of rhetoric, the enthymeme is the argumentative counterpart of deductive inference and the example is the counterpart of inductive inference, S. Enthymeme; Example.

1. Analogy, deduction, induction and conduction

Analogical inference is accepted only as a heuristic instrument, it has no probative value, S. Analogy.

Deduction and induction are traditionally opposed on two bases.
— The particular / general orientation. Deduction and induction are considered to be two complementary processes, induction going from the general to the most general:

This Syldavian is red-haired, so all Syldavians are red-haired.

Whereas, the deduction would go from the most general to the least general:

Men are mortal, so Socrates is mortal.

But syllogistic deduction can be generalizing:

All horses are mammals, all mammals are vertebrates, therefore all horses are vertebrates.

— The degree of certainty. The valid conclusion of a syllogistic deduction from true premises is apodictic, i.e., necessarily true, while induction only concludes in a probable way.

 

— Conduction is considered by Wellman (1971) as a specific kind of inference on a par with deduction and induction.

2. Immediate inference and analytic statements

An analytic statement is a statement deemed true “by definition”, i.e., in virtue of its meaning. Good definitions are analytically true “a single person is an adult unmarried person”. While logical immediate inference proceeds from quantifiers or “empty words”, immediate analytical inference operates upon the meaning of the “full words” of the basic utterance:

He is single, so he is not married.

In arguments such as, “this is our duty, so we must do it”, the proposition introduced by so, “we must do it” is contained in the argument “it is our duty”; by definition a duty is something people must do. The conclusion, if a conclusion at all, is immediate.
More broadly, an analytic inference is an inference where the conclusion is some way embedded in the argument; the conclusion only develops the semantic contents of the argument. If I’m advised that my colleague recently “quitted smoking” I can analytically infer that he or she smoked in the past, S. Presupposition.

Consider the example:

You talk about the birth of the Gods; this implies that at one time the Gods did not exist. This is just as impious as talking about the death of Gods, for which your colleague was recently sentenced to death.

Birth is defined as the “beginning of life”. The conclusion does not directly follow from the definition of the word; an additional step is needed to make explicit the meaning of “beginning”, chosen so as to imply equivalence between the times after death with the times before birth. For this reason, the conclusion does not seem so obvious as in the preceding cases.

3. Pragmatic inference

The concept of pragmatic inference is used to account for the interpretation of utterances in discourse. In the dialogue:

S1    — Whom did you meet at the party?
S2    — Paul, Peter and Mary

From S2’s answer, S1 will infer that S2 encountered no other person they both know. This inference is based on a transition law, the maxim of quantity, or completeness: “when you are asked something, give the best information you have, both quantitatively and qualitatively”. If S2 met Bruno at the party, a person well-known to S1, then S2 can be said to have lied to S1 by omission, S. Cooperation.

---

 

Induction is one of the three classical modes of inference. Induction goes from the particular to the general; it generalizes to all cases findings and information gathered from a limited number of cases.

I draw a marble from the bag; then a second marble, … then still another marble…
The bag is still not empty; nonetheless, I conclude that this is a bag of marbles.

To conclude with certainty, all the remaining items would have to be examined, but it would take a long time. A trade-off must be found between 1) the margins of uncertainty I can tolerate and 2) the amount of time that would be needed to check the entire bag. I decide to save time I check some items and conclude, “this is a bag of marbles”.
Induction rests on similarity between the individuals, possibly based just on one feature, deemed relevant by the arguer.

An induction based on just one case is an example.

1. Forms of induction

Complete induction — Induction is said to be complete and its conclusion positive (valid, certain), if one proceeds by an exhaustive inspection of each individual. Such a process is possible only if one has access to all the members of the set.

Induction from a representative subset to the set — A proposition found true in a carefully selected sample can be tentatively extended to the whole:

40 per cent of a representative sample of voters polled declared their intention to vote for candidate Joni. So Joni will get 40 per cent of the vote on Election Day.

Depending on whether or not the sample is truly representative, whether or not people have given fanciful answers, the conclusion varies from almost certain to vaguely probable.

Induction from an essential characteristic — The generalization from an accidental property of a specimen to all other specimen is hazardous, but when based on an essential property, the conclusion is positive, S. Example:

This is a normal Syldavian passport.
This passport mentions the religious affiliation of the holder.
So all Syldavian passports mention religious affiliation.

2. Refutation of induction

A conclusion obtained by induction is refuted by showing that it proceeds from a hasty generalization, based on the examination of an insufficient number of cases. To that end, one exhibits members of the collection that do not possess the property.

3. Induction in mathematics: recursive reasoning

In mathematics, recursive reasoning is a form of induction which leads to positive conclusions (Vax 1982, [Mathematical induction or recursive reasoning]). It is operative in domains such as arithmetic, where a relation of succession can be defined. First, it must be shown that the property holds for 1; then, that if it holds for an individual “i”, it also holds for its successor “i + 1”. The conclusion is that all the members of the set possess the tested property.

4. Induction as a positive method in literary history

An inductive argument consists of establishing a general law or tendency and applying this to a large number of examples. This process is typical of the positivist science of literature and ideas.

§ 2 Diffusion of Irreligion in the Nobility and the Clergy
Diffusion of irreligion is considerable in the high nobility. General testimonies abound, ‘Atheism’, says Lamothe-Langon, ‘was universally spread in what was called high society; to believe in God was becoming ridiculous, and we were careful to guard ourselves’. The Memoirs of Ségur, those of Vaublanc, those of the Marquise de la Tour du Pin confirm what Lamothe-Langon writes. At Madame d’Hénin’s, the Princess de Poix, the Duchesse de Biron, the Princess de Bouillon, and in the ranks of officers, people are, if not atheist, at least deist. Most members of the salons were “philosophers”, and adopted the spirit of the philosophers, and the great philosophers are their most beautiful ornament. This may be seen not only in the salon of the philosophers themselves, at d’Holbach’s, Mme Helvetius’s, Mme Necker’s, Fanny de Beauharnais’s (where we see Mably, Mercier, Cloots, Boissy d’Anglas), but also among the great nobility. At the Duchesse d’Enville’s, one meets Turgot, Adam Smith, Arthur Young, Diderot, Condorcet; at the Count de Castellane’s, D’Alembert, Condorcet, and Raynal. In the salons of the Duchesse de Choiseul, the Maréchale de Luxembourg, the Duchesse de Grammont, Madame de Montesson, the Comtesse de Tessé, the Comtesse de Ségur (her mother), Ségur meets or hears Rousseau, Helvétius, Duclos, Voltaire, Diderot, Marmontel, Raynal, Mably. The Hôtel de la Rochefoucauld is the meeting place of the more or less skeptical and liberal great lords, Choiseul, Rohan, Maurepas, Beauvau, Castries, Chauvelin, Chabot, who meet with Turgot, d’Alembert, Barthélémy, Condorcet, Caraccioli, Guibert. There are many others who might be mentioned here: the salons of the Duchesse d’Aiguillon, who was ‘very infatuated with modern philosophy, that is to say, with materialism and atheism’, Madame de Beauvau, the Duke of Levis, Madame de Vernage, the Comte de Choiseul-Gouffier, the Vicomte de Noailles, the Duke de Nivernais, the Prince de Conti, etc.
Daniel Mornet, [The Intellectual Origins of the French Revolution], 1933[1]

The claim to be justified asserts that, “the diffusion of irreligion is considerable in the high nobility”. It is supported by an explicit testimony, accompanied by three others, which are merely evoked. This is followed by an affirmation of the same order, “most members of the salons are “philosophers” and philosophers are their most beautiful ornament”, supported by twenty-eight names of philosophers. The reasoning is irresistible, but the reading can be boring.

The strength of the asserted principle depends on the number of cases considered. Their small number gives some reasons for skepticism:

It hasn’t been sufficiently appreciated how insignificant is the number of these historical examples upon which are asserted the “laws” claiming to be valid for all the past and future evolution of the humanity. [Vico] claims that history is a succession of alternations between a period of progress and a period of regression; he gives two examples. [Saint-Simon] that it is a succession of oscillations between an organic epoch and a critical epoch; he gives two examples. A third, [Marx], that it is a series of economic regimes, each of which eliminates its predecessor by violence; he gives one single example!
Julien Benda, The Treachery of the Clerks, [1927].[2] Our emphasis.

It should be noted that Benda’s own claim that, “the number of these historical examples upon which is asserted a “law” claiming to be valid for all the past and future evolution of humanity is insignificant”, is itself backed by three examples.

---

[1] Daniel Mornet (1933). Les origines intellectuelles de la Révolution Française, 1715-1787. Paris: Armand Colin, p. 270-271.
[2] Quoted after Julien Benda, La Trahison des clercs. Paris: Grasset, 1975, p. 224-225.

---

 

Ancient rhetorical theory is not particularly concerned with the connecting words structuring the argumentative passages. In contemporary times, Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca ([1958]) do not mention connectives, nor does Lausberg (1960) in his monumental re-creation of the classical system.
Toulmin’s “layout of argument” emphasizes the role of linguistic connectives in the articulation of the element of the argumentative cell (1958) whereby the Warrant is introduced by since; the backing by on account of; the claim (conclusion) by so; the rebuttal (counter-discourse) by unless. Toulmin does not however discuss the connectives in any further detail.
Connecting words are a central issue for the linguistic theory of argumentation (Ducrot & al. 1980).

1. Indicators

Indicators are relevant to argumentative analysis on three levels

(1) Boundary indicators, helping to delineate the argumentative sequence.
(2) Internal indicators, helping to identify and articulate the argument and the conclusion within the argumentative sequence.
(3) Argument scheme indicators, helping to identify the argument scheme embodied in a specific argumentation.

All linguistic phenomena that can be exploited for any of these operations can be considered to be argumentative indicators, not only discourse particles and full semantic words. The label most often refers to the intermediate level, that of the argument-conclusion structure, where connectives play a prominent role.

1.1 Multifunctionality of connective particles

The terminology used for connectives and markers of discursive or argumentative structure is overabundant. Schematically, the framework for the discussion is as detailed below.

— Logical connectives build complex propositions from simple or complex propositions.
— Connective words belong to the category of discursive particles. From a grammatical point of view, discursive particles are conjunctions, prepositions, adverbs, interjections… Some discourse particles are particularly attached to conversational speech: well, hm, right…
— Natural language connectives are multi-functional. Some connectives have essentially non-argumentative functions, even in argumentative contexts. For example, enumerative and ordering connectives, “firstly, secondly, and finally” can be used to list a series of agenda items as well as a successions of arguments. In an argumentative context, the “list effect” can itself be argumentative.

Other connectives such as since, because, so, therefore… are particularly helpful for tagging a segment of discourse as an argument or as a conclusion. However, it must be born in mind that their argumentative function although prevalent, is not exclusive.

To sum up, connectives are multi-functional particles that can signal an argument-conclusion relation.

1.2 Connective verbs

The argument-conclusion structure, “A so B” can also be articulated by a full verbal construction:

[A]; which leads me to conclude that [B]

1.3 Connectives articulating the semantic contents
of whole discourses.

Logical connectives articulate precise sets of well-defined logical propositions, whereas natural language connectives articulate not only propositions but also discourse of undetermined length:

 [A]. From this, we can conclude that [B].

In reality, connectives articulate meanings inferred from such indeterminate spans of discourse. A statement like “and so [Fr. ainsi] Commissioner Valentin jailed the whole gang” may close a novel. The left scope of so sums up all the events since the beginning of the investigation of Commissioner Valentin. The same is true for the connector but, which does not articulate propositions but semantic-pragmatic contents (example infra, §3.1); S. Orientation.

1.4 Multifunctionality of argument indicators

Argument indicators are not unifunctional words; not all their occurrences are argumentative. The discourse following so or thus is not necessarily a conclusion, and the discourse following because is not necessarily an argument pointing to a conclusion. There are non-argumentative cases of thus and because, and there are excellent arguments which feature neither therefore nor because. This means, on the one hand, that peppering a speech with because and therefore will not necessarily turn it into an argumentation. Aristotle had already spotted this strategy and rightly considered it as vain, S. Expression. On the other hand, if the interpreter waits for a so or a because to realize that he or she is involved in an argumentative situation, he or she can be said to be seriously lacking in argumentative, interpretative and interactional competence. The connective particles restrict the possibilities of interpretation by evoking a possible argumentative structure, but they are not summons addressed to a sleepy recipient to awake him from his or her interpretive torpor.
The discussion of the argumentative value of a particle must be related to the argumentative sequence itself. It must be independently defined, that is, insofar as it is organized by an argumentative question articulating discourse and counter-discourse. The argumentative character of a particle is context dependent. The fact of occurring in argumentative contexts activates its argumentative function. This general condition does not preclude the practice of the ars subtilior of reconstructing implicit arguments and conclusions.

In practice, the analysis of the connecting phenomenon should first give full consideration to the complexity of the grammar of connecting words and connected discourses:

— Their grammatical category, full words as well as discursive particles.
— Their syntactic characteristics.
— Their idiosyncratic semantic and syntactic properties.
— Their multifunctionality as argumentative particles: a particle like but can mark an argument, a conclusion, a contradiction or an argumentative dissociation.

Therefore, but, because are prime examples of particles with an argumentative function.

2. Thus, therefore, so… since, because…

So can be a conclusion marker, and many other things. It may for example, mark the resumption of a topic already introduced and forming the ratified topic of the text or of the interaction, but momentarily left aside. To make matters worse, this non-argumentative resumption can be found everywhere, and in particular in argumentative contexts. The following example is taken from a lively debate about the attribution of French nationality to immigrants living in France[1]:

I think that:: all these people— and then also the people who came thus, so [Fr. donc “therefore”] during the post-war boom years, we still owe them a certain form of respect.

No participant ever doubted that “these people” came “during the glorious thirties”. The reasoning here is that since they came during the “during the post-war bloom years”, as workers, they are therefore entitled to respect. Actually, so [Fr. donc, “therefore”], resumes a statement that is, functionally, not a conclusion but an argument. The structure is {[we owe respect to all these people, Conclusion] [they came to work (during the post-war bloom years), Argument]}, and certainly not:

* we owe respect to all these people, so [Fr. donc] they came during the post-war boom years.

The following intervention is made by a property manager, M, during a conciliation session with his tenant, T. The manager recapitulates his position: he requests a 80F (14 $) monthly increase of the rent[2].

[I asked/ Mrs. T certainly remembers\ I asked if you want uh, so uh: eighty francs if you want to get to a thousand thirty a month=]_claim [that seemed very reasonable, very reasonable]_modal considering the apartment/ and considering its location/ (..) you know a three room apartment let’s say all the same on the second floor’ (..) relatively comfortable\]_argument
Corpus Negotiation on rents (conciliation commission), Clapi Data Base of Spoken French. Our parenthesis, italics and tagging.

T.’s claim is articulated to the context by so [Fr. donc, “so, therefore”], which sounds quite standard. But this claim is not inferred from what comes before, which has already been expressed and repeated. The so [donc] is in its classical recall, resumptive function; it just happens that the repeated segment is a claim. Thus, this is the case of a non-argumentative so, in a strongly argumentative context.

So, then… because… can be used to extract and thematize the implicit content of a sentence:

— An encyclopedic content:

All this happened in Greenland, so far in the North

— A semantically presupposed content:

S1    — Peter stopped smoking
S2    — then you know he used to smoke (in the past)?

— An implication of the act of saying such and such thing:

S1    — this dress suits you very well!
S2    — because the others don’t?

3. But

But reverses the argumentative orientation of the propositions it introduces. Nonetheless, no more than so, but is not an inherently argumentative particle, and the argumentative framework and vocabulary cannot account for all its occurrences. In particular but reverses not only argumentative orientations but also narrative and descriptive orientations.

3.1 But, reverser of narrative and descriptive orientations

Generally speaking, but serves to reverse the orientation, regardless of the kind of orientation: narrative, argumentative, or descriptive.

But is used to introduce a new narrative development:

August 27: On Friday, I remembered that the annual tax on my car was due to expire. Since I am not one of those who wait until the last minute to renew it, I went to the tax office. An employee was there, waiting for me, or almost. In just a few minutes, via the Internet, everything was done. I’m set until next year. But in the meantime…
He walked, and while he walked, tirelessly, with his head held high, rocked by his regular rhythm, he dreamed of next year […] ([3])

Such non-argumentative occurrences of but are quite common. The following passage contains perhaps the most famous but in all of French literature. Emma is the heroine of Gustave Flaubert’s novel, Madame Bovary. The whole passage is narrative-descriptive. First, it develops a semantic isotopy, “travel, love, beauty, exotic life, hammocks and gondolas”. But articulates this first isotopy to a second one, “husband snoring, children coughing, irritating screeching noises and provincial life”. It would not make sense to impose an argumentative analysis upon such a but.

Emma was not asleep; she pretended to be; and while he dozed off by her side she awakened to other dreams.
To the gallop of four horses she was carried away for a week towards a new land, whence they would return no more. They went on and on, their arms entwined, without a word. Often from the top of a mountain they suddenly glimpsed some splendid city with domes, and bridges, and ships, forests of citron trees, and cathedrals of white marble, on whose pointed steeples were storks’ nests. They went at a walking-pace because of the great flag-stones, and on the ground there were bouquets of flowers, offered you by women dressed in red bodices. They heard the chiming of bells, the neighing of mules, together with the murmur of guitars and the noise of fountains, whose rising spray refreshed heaps of fruit arranged like a pyramid at the foot of pale statues that smiled beneath playing waters. And then, one night they came to a fishing village, where brown nets were drying in the wind along the cliffs and in front of the huts. It was there that they would stay; they would live in a low, flat-roofed house, shaded by a palm-tree, in the heart of a gulf, by the sea. They would row in gondolas, swing in hammocks, and their existence would be easy and large as their silk gowns, warm and star-spangled as the nights they would contemplate. However, in the immensity of this future that she conjured up, nothing special stood forth; the days, all magnificent, resembled each other like waves; and it swayed in the horizon, infinite, harmonized, azure, and bathed in sunshine. But the child began to cough in her cot or Bovary snored more loudly, and Emma did not fall asleep till morning, when the dawn whitened the windows, and when little Justin was already in the square taking down the shutters of the chemist’s shop.
Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary, [1856][4]

In these two examples, but is not argumentative, it marks an isotopic shift.

3.2 But, indicator of an unresolved contradiction

While in the standard case of an argumentative but, the inferred contradiction E1 but E2 is resolved, the coordinated construction being cooriented with E2, in other cases but articulates two anti-oriented arguments without argumentative resolution:

S1    — What shall they do today?
S2    — Some want to go to the woods, but others to the beach.

Discourse (a) sounds strange, (b) more standard:

*(a) so we’ll go to the beach.
(b) so we do not know what to do, we’ll have to talk about that

3.3 But, indicator of argumentative dissociation

S1    — I thought you wanted reform?
S2    — We do want reform, but real reform.

The concept of argumentative dissociation was introduced by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, who define it as the splitting of an elementary notion, operated by the arguer to escape a contradiction ([1958], 550-609), S. Dissociation

3.4 Other functions

— Rectification: with reference to “Beautiful blue Danube”

In Vienna, the Danube is not blue but dirty gray

— Preface to a second turn at speech, aligned with the first turn:

S1    — Once again, Peter failed to get his degree
S2    — But that’s exactly like me!                                             

4. Other constructions articulating an argument to a conclusion

An argumentative thus can be paraphrased by a set of verbal constructions connecting an argument to a conclusion:

[Left Context]      therefore, from where, hence, that is why,      [Conclusion]                                  this means, proves, shows clearly that,
                                 one can (then) conclude that

The conclusion appears as the completion of a “connective predicate”. Markers of argumentative structure would thus be unduly restricted to “small connectives words”; other constructions, combining anaphoric terms, verbs, or substantives can play this role.

4.1 Connective predicates

Some verbs predicate a conclusion upon an argument or an argument upon a conclusion. In reality, these connective predicates are the only indisputable and univocal argumentative indicators. We must distinguish between two cases (argument is taken in the sense that it has in theory of argumentation, not as “argument of a mathematical function”, S. Argument)

(1) Conclusion Predicate: the conclusion is predicated upon the argument.
Subject (Argument) + Pred (Conclusion)

— from [Argument] I conclude (that) [Conclusion]:

V = to conclude, infer, deduce…

— [Argument] allows to deduce (that) [Conclusion]:

V = to induce, show, demonstrate…

— [Argument] proves [Conclusion]

V = to prove, demonstrate, support, corroborate, suggest, go in the direction of, motivate, legitimate, justify, entitle to believe (say, think…)

(2) Argument predicate: the argument is predicated upon the conclusion.
Subject (Conclusion) + Pred (Argument)

[Conclusion] ensues from [Argument]:

V = to ensuing, result, follow, derive…

To argue is not a conclusion predicate, but a simple verb of speech activity. In “X argues for such a conclusion”, the subject X must be [+ Human]; it cannot be an argument, a description of a state of affairs. This construction contrasts with the construction “X suggests such a conclusion” where X can be a discourse or a human, S. (To) argue.

Overlooking this set of constructions is particularly damaging in the teaching of argument.

4.2 Constructions framing an argumentation

All the words used to talk about arguments and argumentation can serve as markers of argumentative structuration and argumentative function. This class of nominal indicators includes all the ordinary lexicon of argumentation: (counter-)argument, (counter-)conclusion, point of view…, premise, objection, refutation…

this is my conclusion, a consequence, a serious objection, an argument to be taken into consideration…

[D1, argument] is given as a good reason to admit, to do… is stated, said for, with a view to, to make acceptable, to make, to say, to feel… [D2, conclusion]

the conclusion, the premise, the objection that…; against this point of view…

We can be certain that “building the school here, the land is cheaper” is an argumentation, because it can be satisfactorily paraphrased as follows:

A good reason to build the school here is that the land is less expensive.
The fact that the land is cheaper legitimizes the decision to build the school there.

---

[1] Corpus Debate on Immigration, Clapi Data Base of Spoken French
http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr/V3_Feuilleter.php? Num_corpus = 35]. (09-30-2013)
[2] Corpus Negotiation on Rents – Conciliation Commission), Clapi Data Base of Spoken French. Our parenthesis, italics and tagging.
http://clapi.univ-lyon2.fr/V3_Feuilleter.php?num_corpus=13]. (09-30-2013)
[3] http://impassesud.joueb.com/news/mali-pendant-ce-temps-la-il-il-marchait]. 07-28-2010. Our emphasis.
[4] Quoted after Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary. Trans. by Eleanor Marx-Aveling. Ebook, 2006. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2413/2413-0.txt

---

 

1. Paragons

When it comes to political thinking, some events act as paragons: Munich and the diplomatic defeat of democracies facing Nazi expansionism, the genocide of Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals, are all great analogues that function as an anti-model for all current conflicts. For the United States before the Iraq war, Vietnam was the great analogue called to the rescue when it came to opposing military intervention abroad. Paragons serve as “models” for understanding the new events; they work on the principle of precedent, S. Analogy (II); Precedent; Example.

The paragon, person or event, creates a class by analogy, S. Categorization; Analogy (I).

A “great analogue” can stage characters that are a source of antonomasia. The antonomasia is the figure of speech by which a member of a category is designated by the name of the paragon of this category: a Daladier or a Chamberlain is a politician who capitulates to a dictator instead of fighting him. This references the behavior of the European politicians Edouard Daladier and Neville Chamberlain in Munich in 1938, as they dealt with Hitler.

Anti-models like Chamberlain or Daladier represent everything one should not do (Perelman, Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 362).

Anti-models typify negative authority; the “Model of the Anti-Models” is Hitler, S. Authority §6: Refutative uses of authority.

2. Model

The model is the single most valued member of a hierarchical category.

— It functions as the root of the class, generating the other members of the class.
— It is the most representative element of the category.
— As such, it is the criterion for the evaluation of the other class members and for integrating new individuals into the category.
— It is considered to be the ideal form, towards which all members of the class tend.

The argument by the model supports the conclusions of the type “this is (not) a good (real, true) X” by comparing the item to evaluate and reference.

In classical culture, the doctrine of imitation is based on the authority of a model. Literary genres are defined by the relationship of their members to a founding model, a founding “father”: Thucydides for history; Aesop and La Fontaine for fables; Aristotle and Cicero for argumentation, etc.

3. Setting an example

When chosen as a model by an individual, the model is not necessarily conscious to be a model, and the situation is not clearly argumentative, S. Example

To get an individual to do something, one can proceed argumentatively, that is to say, expose discursively, every reason to do so, and particularly argue by the model, giving as an example important people, either real or fictional, who have committed the same deed. This “argument from exemplarity” can be seen as variant of the verbal argument of authority, a metonymic exemplum.

In addition, one might set an example in order to demonstrate to the other what is wanted. One might stop smoking for example, to encourage a friend to stop smoking. Metaphorically speaking, this is an “argument by example”, as one speaks of an “argument by strength” (appeal to force) when one tries to open a recalcitrant can with a screwdriver.

The example strategy can be applied to all forms of behavior we wish to change; how to eat properly, talk properly, lead a dignified life worthy of reward in the afterlife. During this process, there may be some kind of persuasion, that is transformation of belief correlated with the transformation of behavior, but not all persuasion comes from argument, S. ‘You too’.

Setting an example, the person hopes to set in motion alignment mechanisms. The argument by the example given, plays on non-verbal mechanisms of social imitation, ripple effect, identification, empathy, charisma. Seduction and repulsion are forces distinct from argumentation that push individuals to align or to distance themselves from another person.

The ethotic argument combines with the argumentation by example, thereby pushing the audience to fully identify with the orator as a model, committing themselves to full belief in what he or she says and doing what he or she does, S. Ethos; Consensus; Ad populum.

---

 

Ad ignorantiam argument, Lat. ignorantia, “ignorance”

1. Argumentation from ignorance and legitimacy of doubt

Argumentation from ignorance is defined by Locke as one of the four fundamental forms of argumentation, S. Collections (II):

Secondly, another way that men ordinarily use to drive others, and force them to submit to their judgment, and receive the opinion in debate, is to require the adversary to admit what they allege as a proof or to assign a better. And this I call argumentum ad ignorantiam. ([1690]; Vol. II, p. 410-411)

This argument is considered to be fallacious:

It proves not another man to be in the right way, nor that I ought to take the same way, because I know not a better. (Id., p. 411)

The following dialogue schematizes the situation where S1‘s conclusion relies on the ignorance of S2:

S1_1:   — C, since A.
S2_1:   — This is a bad argument. I do not admit that A proves C.
S1_2:   — Do you have any reason to conclude anything different from C? Do you know a better argument for C?
S2_2:   — Well, no
S1_3:   — Then you have to accept my own proof and my conclusion.

(i) First turn: S1_1 proposes a justified claim C.

(ii) Second turn: S2_1 refuses to ratify the claim C.

(iii) Third turn: S1_2 asks S2 to explain the reasons for his or her doubt. According to the conversational principle which requires justification for non-preferred second turns, S1 is perfectly justified in doing this. S2 could answer:

(a) by presenting objections against the alleged argument, A, or by utterly refuting A;
(b) by constructing a counter-discourse by providing what Locke terms “a better proof”. The text does not tell for what conclusion; so we can therefore assume the following two cases:

(b1) Concluding something different from C;
(b2) Providing “better evidence” for C.

(iv) Fourth turn: S2_2 admits that he or she cannot elaborate anything along the (a), (b1) or (b2) lines.

(v) Fifth turn: S1 may accordingly:

(a) Admit S2’s reluctances, while maintaining his argumentation: “Okay, this is not a very good argument, but it is still interesting, it is even the only one we have”;
(b) Summon S2 to accept his (A, C) argumentation, considering that his partner’s incapacity is a kind of second order proof to add to his former substantial one, A, and so committing an ad ignorantiam fallacy (even if his former argument is, after all, not so bad).

A pure ad ignorantiam fallacy would be based only on the partner’s failure “to assign a better [proof]”. Under conversational circumstances, S2_1 does not ratify S1_1’s turn; normally, this should urge S1 to clarify and elaborate upon his proposal. The crude reaction seems rare: “as you cannot articulate anything against my argumentation, you have to accept it wholesale”.

Seen from S2’s perspective, this situation also seems a little bizarre, a kind of borderline case where S2 has only his or her inner conviction to oppose to an argumentation. Under standard conditions, a conversationalist and a fortiori a dialectician, knows how to elaborate upon a strong inner conviction. In essence, Locke seems to attribute to S2 a kind of radical clause of conscience.

Leibniz mitigates this radical stand: “The argument ad ignorantiam is valid in cases of presumption where it is reasonable to hold to an opinion till the contrary is proved” ([1765], p. 576).
Presumption here has the meaning of burden of proof. The pretension of L1 may be excessive and misleading, but his argument nevertheless creates a preference in the field concerned, and in practice we can stick to it until something else has been proven.
This “for lack of anything better” reasoning seems to be the standard case in practical argumentation when a decision has to be made and a possibly urgent action has to be taken:

S1_1:     — Upon such and such basis, I propose 1) that we take such and such a disposition; 2) that we explore such and such a hypothesis. Now, the floor is yours

S2:        [Long silence]

S1_2:     — Nothing to say? Silence meaning consent,
1) In the absence of contradiction, my proposal is adopted.
2) In the absence of any other hypothesis, mine will serve as a working hypothesis.

It is difficult to object to S1_2’s conclusions. He or she does not claim that his proposition is the only viable one, nor that his hypothesis should be held to be true.

2. Ignorance and principle of the excluded middle

The argument from ignorance is also defined, without consideration of the quality of the argumentation, as an illegitimate application of the principle of the excluded middle:

P is true, since you are unable to prove that it is false.

The argument is not conclusive. If we consider that “not-P is not proven” is equivalent to “not-(not-P)” we conclude that P, by application of the principle of the excluded middle. But the two nots are not of the same nature: “not-P is not proved” does not mean “not-P is false”, which would be a confusion between what is true (alethic) and what is knowable (epistemic), S. Absurd.

3. Ignorance, burden of proof, precautionary principle

I am innocent, since you are incapable of proving that I am guilty.
You are guilty because you are incapable of proving your innocence.

Admitting that P is true, or acting “as if” it was true in the absence of proof of not-P is a decision that falls to the institution empowered to discuss and rule on such matter in the field concerned. In the judicial field, presumption of innocence places the burden of proof on the prosecution and gives the benefit of doubt to the defendant.

Precautionary principle
In the debate on the safety or toxicity of new products, a decision has to be made in a situation of insufficient knowledge. The presumption of safety would be:

Possibly the product has toxic effects, but this is not proven. So it has no toxic effects.

The precautionary principle is easiest to rebut when maximized:

Every new product is assumed toxic and will remain forbidden until its safety has been proved.

Under its common form, it simply reverses the burden of proof:

The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk.
Wikipedia, Precautionary Principle

Situation: no scientific consensus on the inocuity of a given product
Decision: the burden of proof is upon those which use it

4. Argument from ignorance and argument from silence

S. Silence

---

The argument of direction, or slippery slope argument, is based on the device of stages and is used to counter the gradualist strategy. It is classified as an argument “based on the structure of reality” by Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca.

1. The device of stages as a general action strategy

Generally speaking, the process of stages is implemented when the overall goal is judged as being directly unattainable; it is then divided into smaller, more easily achievable goals.
This process of division corresponds to a common action strategy, which is not necessarily manipulative. Experienced explorers explain that when lost in the desert, dying of thirst, and trying to reach a desperately distant town (final goal) one must set oneself a manageable goal, say the next dune, and then the next cactus, and so, step-by-step finally reach the distant town.

More relevant to everyday life perhaps is the solution to trying to carry a heavy weight. If I cannot carry this one hundred pound object, I dismantle it and carry each of its parts separately.
Such small but achievable goals might be ordered, as is the case in every learning process: one first learns to drive on a normal road for example, before learning to drive on an icy road. In these different cases, the actor keeps the ultimate goal in mind, in relation to which the partial goals are determined and organized.

2. The gradualist strategy

To get something from another person, an actor can apply the process of stages. In that case, the gradualist process should not be considered to be an argument but an intentionally opaque, manipulative strategy, S. Manipulation.

It is often found to be better not to confront the interlocutor with the whole interval separating the existing situation from the ultimate end, but to divide this interval into sections, with stopping points along the way indicating partial ends, whose realization does not provoke such a strong opposition. (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).

Step-by-step strategy, in this second sense, is commonly referred to in sales as a priming strategy:

The newlywed Joneses want to buy a flat; the real estate agent proposes a modest, fully sufficient two room flat, and they agree to buy it. Now the agent has got a foot in the door, and observes that very soon a baby will come; so they really need a three-room flat, and they change their mind and agree to buy one. But the agent observes that Mrs. Jones is developing a promising start-up, she needs an individual office; so they need a four-room flat, etc.

Arguing with the Lord to convince him to hold his wrath toward Sodom, Abraham uses such a priming strategy and step-by-step process — somewhat manipulative, but nonetheless laudable. The argument goes not from the few to the many but from just some to a very little few:

[…] Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”
The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city for lack of five people?” “If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”
Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?” He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”
Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?” He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”
Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?” He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”
When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.
Genesis 18:22-33 New International Version.[1]

Unfortunately, the Lord will not find ten righteous people in Sodom.

3. Argument of direction, or slippery slope argument

The term argument of direction is an alternative name for the slippery slope argument. It is used to prevent the application of a gradualist strategy:

“[it] consists, essentially, in guarding against the use of the device of stages. If you give in this time, you will have to give in a little more next time, and heaven knows where you will stop” (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca [1958], p. 282).

---

[1] Quoted after www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2018:16-33

---

 

Lat. ejusdem generis argument. Lat. idem, “identical”; genus, “genus”.

1. Argument from genus

The argument from the genus is based on essential definition. It transfers to the species, and ultimately to the individuals, the properties, duties, representations, any and all characteristic attached to the genus they belong to, S. Classification; Categorization; Definition.

2. Extending to the genus: the generic clause “… and the like”

Generic clauses are phrases such as “… and the things of the same kind”, “… and the like”. The text has the form:

This provision concerns a, b, c, and things of the same kind.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2[1].
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. (My italics)

If an object x is not included in the enumeration “a, b, c…” but if it is possible to consider that it belongs to the category defined by the enumeration, then the generalizing clause “and all beings of the same kind” applies the provision concerning a, b and c to x.

This shows that the individuals enumerated are mentioned not only for their own sake, but also as prototypes from which a new category must be derived, S. Analogy (II).

This provision concerns cars, motorcycles, and all private means of transportation.

Cars and motorcycles are considered to be prototypical members of the category “private means of transportation” to which the provision applies. Note that the particle etc. would also open the list to new categories of individuals, but would not give any indication about the relevant common feature constituting them into a specific genus, as the provision “all private means of transportation” does quite clearly. The generic provision may either create a new category out of the enumeration of specific individuals, or explicitly mention an existing genus:

One must pay the tax on chickens, geese, and other poultry.
Conclusion: therefore on ducks and turkeys.

Chickens and geese are mentioned only as prototypical examples of the category “poultry”. One can discuss borderline cases, for example whether a peacock is really a backyard animal or a pet. In any case, there is no levy on rabbits, which don’t qualify as poultry.

On the other hand, the absence of a generic provision limits the application of the measure to the categories that are explicitly mentioned:

You have to pay the tax on chickens and geese.
Conclusion: So not on ducks.

Unless the legislator’s intention is invoked.

The use of the extensive clause is not limited to the legal field:

Fixed concrete barbecue
Warning! Do not use alcohol, gasoline or similar liquids to light or reactivate the fire.

---

[1] Quoted after www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ (01-07-2017)

---