ARGUMENTATIVE QUESTION
The concept of an argumentative question derives from the notion of stasis, developed primarily by the rhetorical theory of legal interaction.
The concepts of an argumentative question and an argumentative situation are interdependent. An argumentative situation arises when two speeches on the same topic begin to diverge to some degree. It can occur during a remote or face-to-face, oral or written, interaction. Such potentially argumentative situation can develop into an actual argumentative situation when the divergence becomes topicalized and ratified by a participant. All of these necessary developments delimit an argumentative space, and definie what is argumentation, before the appearance of arguments strictly speaking (discursive segments supporting a conclusion).
The existence of a question is at the origin of the paradoxes of argumentation.
1. Proposition, Opposition, Doubt: A Question
The following example, constructed around the recurring question “Should we legalize drugs?” shows how the question assigns argumentative roles, on the basis of the three argumentative speech acts of proposing, opposing and doubting.
- The current state of the law
In Syldavia 2022, the production, import, export, trade, possession, and use of drugs are prohibited.
This statement corresponds to the state of Syldavian legislation, which is generally supported by the “prevailing opinion”, taken as a matter of course, and therefore does not require an argument.
- A proposition
Another discourse is oriented towards a proposition that opposes this prohibition:
P: — The use of soft drugs should be legalized, or at least tolerated.
Speaker P assumes the argumentative role of the proponent, and opens the debate. All speakers who agree with this proposal serve as allies.
- An opposition
Other speakers oppose the proposal:
O: — That’s outrageous!
Speaker O plays the argumentative role of the opponent. Speakers who are willing to engage in this kind of discourse of rejection of the proposal are allies.
- Doubt and question: the emergence of the argumentative question
Some participants refuse to align themselves with either position. They are in the position of third parties, who synthesize the relation of proposition vs. opposition into an argumentative question, and transform the discourse confrontation into a full argumentative situation:
TP: — All this is quite confusing. Should the prohibition of all these drugs that you call soft be maintained or not?
The argumentative question is thus generated by the contradiction “discourse / counter-discourse”, hence the schema:
Proposition vs. Opposition → Argumentative Question (AQ)
2. The Conclusion as an Answer to the Argumentative Question
When discourse becomes confrontational, good reasons are needed and quickly provided. The proponent bears the burden of proof and must provide arguments to meet this requirement, for example by recategorizing soft drugs in the same category as alcohol or anxiolytics:
P — Soft drugs are no more dangerous than alcohol or tranquilizers; alcohol is not subject to any general prohibition, and tranquilizers are subject to medical prescription.
This argument supports the slogan:
Yes! Let us at least be more tolerant towards soft drugs!
Produced under the general scope of the argumentative question, this conclusion gives an answer to this question.
The opponent must first show that the proponent’s argument is untenable:
O1: No! Alcohol has nothing to do with drugs. We know how to drink in this country; alcohol is part of our culture, drugs are not. And if you legalize soft drugs next you’ll have to tolerate hard drugs!
O2: In Syldavia, they tried to legalize drugs, and the experience failed. Enough with social experiments that to harm young people!
Conclusion:
Let us reject this crazy new proposal of legalization!
Second, O presents a counter-argument for of a different position. This could be the maintenance of the status quo::
Honest citizens live peacefully thanks to the prohibition; the situation is under control as it is!
Under the standard regime, the doxa is self-evident; but once the argumentative situation is opened, it requires justification.
Argumentative questions are different from informative ones. The latter allow for direct, unambiguous relevant answers:
S0: When did you arrive? What hotel are you staying in?
S1: Yesterday, and I’m staying at the Grand Brand Hotel.
S0_2: Oh, that’s wonderful! And what are you doing this evening?
The answer to the argumentative question requires an argument:
S0: Does the fight against terrorism authorize restrictions on freedom of expression?
S1: Yes.
S0_2 Oh, that’s wonderful. Now, let’s move to the next question.
3. Argumentative Situation: Form and Structuring Rules
3.1 Representation
In a stabilized argumentative situation, proponents and opponents are also called upon to present positive arguments and to refute the antagonistic position. This situation can be roughly represented as follows:
Argumentation is seen as a way of constructing answers to a question to which incompatible answers have been given.
Under the assumption of coherence, all the semiotic acts produced in this situation are oriented towards the consolidation of the answer-conclusion.
The argumentative question is essentially open; the legitimacy (interest, respectability) of the pro and contra interventions is recognized, at least factually. Sometimes the participants agree on a mutually satisfactory answer-conclusion, sometimes they don’t.
In many cases, an element of doubt remains attached to the surviving, ratified, answer, and the question may reappear. In other words, the answer is provisional; it cannot be completely separated from the question and the set of pros and counterarguments that generated it. The answer is therefore an answer by default; an unstable answer, that may be subject to revision.
The Centrality of Third parties
Given that third parties play a role in decision making, it follows that:
1) The evolution of the exchange will generally change the initial positions as expressed in the opening sequence. Then, the final conclusion will not be identical to any of the positions as expressed in the opening sequence of the interaction.
2) A well-executed, successful argumentative exchange may conclude without a winner and a loser.
3) Participants are not forced to give up their positions
Question and Relevance
The question establishes the relevance principle for argumentative contributions: relevance of the arguments to the conclusion, relevance of the conclusions as answers to the question.
The question itself, and thus the relevance of the contributions, can be challenged during the debate. It can be rejected on the grounds that it is flawed, poorly stated, or irrelevant to « deeper, real » issues.
Burden of Proof
The previous diagram attempts to show the asymmetry between discourse and counter-discourse, as determined by the burden of proof resting on the proponent. This allocation may change depending on the participants and the nature of the forum in which the discussion takes place.
3.2 A double constraint
Arguments are constructed under a double constraint; on the one hand, they are oriented by a question, and, on the other hand they are under the pressure of the counter-discourse. This situation is characterized by macro-discursive phenomena, such as the following ones:
Bipolarization of discourse
Followers are attracted by the issue; they identify themselves with the speakers involved; they adapt their language to reflect the words and practices of the leading speakers; on the other hand, they exclude speakers and supporters of the opposing discourse (us versus them).
Crystallization of discourse
Fixed lexical collocations, antonymic pairs emerge. Positions tend to become stereotyped; argument scripts tend to stabilize.
Resistance to refutation
Mechanisms of resistance to refutation emerge. Arguments are presented in the form of self-argued claims, mimicking analyticity.
3.3 Changing minds, language and roles
Not only at the end of the discussion, but also during the exchange, participants can be persuaded to change their minds, their opinions and their and language, from one role to another.
4. Monologizing the “Question — AnswerS” game
The vision of argumentation as a discussion between incompatible points of view on the same subject is operative in both monologues and dialogs.
4.1 Dialogs can be monologized in two different ways
4.1.1 Monologal, non-polyphonic interventions
In an argumentative intervention that develops a series of co-oriented arguments to a conclusion, the arguer expresses only one position, and adopts a demonstrative “no alternative” rhetoric. The monologue is monophonic.
Monophonic interventions ignore the speeches and positions of the opponents. This means that their practical study requires the construction of a corpus that brings together the various interventions that support the various responses. The case for P is best understood when it refers to some denial, or neglect of P.
4.1.2 Monologal, polyphonic intervention
In another type of monologue, the arguer takes different positions, and puts forward several hypotheses about the same argumentative issue, without advocating any of them in particular. The discourse stages several voices, especially the main competing voice that of the opponent. Such a monologue is polyphonic, see interaction, dialogue, polyphony.
Polyphonic interventions contain a representation of the speeches of the other participants. Under different polyphonic modalities, they take over the set of situational discursive data, the question and the speech and position of the opponent, which are reformulated under different discursive regimes, according to different images assigned to the interlocutor and different self-allocated ethos. As a result, the assertion is introduced under an interrogative veil.
These strategies of polyphonic monologizing of the question have been clearly identified in ancient rhetoric, where they are considered as figures of speech, interrogation (interrogatio), subjection (subjection) and dubitation (dubitatio) (Lausberg, [1960], § 766-779).
(i) The question is framed as having one self-evident answer (interrogatio)
This is the case of the interrogatio, or “rhetorical question” classically defined as a question with an obvious answer.
Now, can such a person make a better president than our candidate? Certainly not.
The speaker “disambiguates ” the argumentative question and gives it an answer that is presented as the only possible, self-evident answer.
The speaker assumes the position of “the one who knows” and embeds the answer in the question. Third parties are placed in the position of allies who also know and applaud; opponents are challenged by a form of argument by ignorance. The purpose of this strategy is to suggest that “there is no problem with this issue”.
(ii) The question is framed as having a justifiable answer (subjectio)
Latin subjectio, “to put before, under the eyes”; here, “to submit to” the audience.
The question is presented as requiring clarification and explanation rather than argument. The speaker takes the place of the investigator or the teacher who asks the right question and solves it objectively. The interlocutor is framed as a student or a judge, who shares the question and accepts the proposed answers according to the logic of pedagogical co-construction.
Here is the situation, here is the question, and here are the data. We can think of three different answers, solutions, possibilities (a), (b), (c)… Solution (a) is a variant of solution (b), as we will show. For this and that a good reason, solution (c) must be preferred to solution (b). So, the correct answer is (c).
Ph.D. dissertations might approximate this strategy. During the defense, a member of the jury may re-dialectize the monologue, expressing solution (a) differently , and reversing the evaluation of (c) over (b).
(iii) The question is framed as open-ended, and the speech constructs the answer in real time (dubitatio)
The speaker now takes the place of the third party, the ignorant party who has his or her doubts. In a kind of role reversal, the interlocutor is placed in the elevated position of an advisor. The construction of the solution is now attributed to the interlocutor-counselor, rather than the speaker-investigator.
In all three cases, the monologizing of the argumentative situation plays heavily on the preference for agreement. It does not leave the floor to other participants, and can channel their voices toward the speaker’s conclusion.