{"id":4656,"date":"2021-10-16T11:34:54","date_gmt":"2021-10-16T09:34:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4656"},"modified":"2025-03-28T11:57:28","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T10:57:28","slug":"argumentation-ii-key-features-and-issues-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/argumentation-ii-key-features-and-issues-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Argumentation 2: Key Features and Issues"},"content":{"rendered":"

ARGUMENTATION 2: KEY FEATURES AND ISSUES
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

The domain of argumentation studies can be characterized \u00a0 according to an underlying system of key features, questions and orientations.<\/span><\/p>\n

1. Key questions about the role of language<\/span><\/h1>\n

The following table proposes a possible organization of the field according to the role of language and the type of speech situation that is given theoretical prominence. This hypothesis makes it possible to represent the various concepts of argumentation as a tree structure, in which the nodes correspond to the research questions, or crossroads questions, that articulate the field.
\nSuch a representation illustrates that what might at first glance to be an arbitrary dispersion of options, actually reflects the need to consider\u00a0 the complex range of argumentative situations. <\/span><\/p>\n

A vision of argumentation might be characterized as a structured choice among the various options opened up by the following questions.
\nOther possible starting points will be suggested in \u00a72.<\/span><\/p>\n

Table : Key features and questions about the role of language<\/span> in argumentation<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Same table:<\/p>\n

(1) Argumentation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(2) AS A THINKING ACTIVITY<\/span>:
\n<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The study of argumentation as a psycho-cognitive process<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(3) AS A LINGUISTIC-COGNITIVE ACTIVITY<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(5) Extended <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(7)\u00a0 as a form of language:<\/span>\u00a0 \u201cARGUMENTATION<\/span> WITHIN<\/span> LANGUAGE\u201d\u00a0<\/span> <\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(8) as the eneral form of discourse<\/span>:<\/span> \u201cNATURAL<\/span> LOGIC\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

(6) Situated<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

(9) monologue\u00a0<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

not polyphonic: LOGIC AS AN ART OF THINKING<\/span> \u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

polyphonic: \u00ab\u00a0BENE DICENDI\u201d RHETORIC<\/span><\/span>
\n<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(10) dialog<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

without\u00a0 <\/strong><\/span>turn-taking:\u00a0 <\/span>RHETORIC OF PERSUASION<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

with <\/strong>turn-taking:<\/strong><\/span> \u00a0 DIALOGUE LOGIC<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

INTERACTION<\/span> \u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

(2) vs.<\/em> (3) vs.<\/em> (4): The Cognitive, Linguistic and Multimodal Dimensions of Argumentation<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Different general questions could be taken as starting points, and each question would produce a different map of the field. This map arises from the general question: is argumentation fundamentally a linguistic activity or a cognitive activity \u2014 or both?<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

If argumentation were defined as a pure activity of thinking<\/em>, expressed in a perfectly transparent language, the study of argumentation would correspond to a psychology of thinking without language.<\/span><\/p>\n

But mathematical thinking and scientific reasoning require language, as does everyday argumentation. Language-based approaches to argumentation deal with the cognitive component within the linguistic component. Such approaches are compatible with different positions on the question of thinking and reasoning. Classical Logic, Natural Logic, Informal Logic and cognitive approaches stress the articulation of thought and language in the argumentative activity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Argumentation is unanimously understood as a discursive practice. The consideration of still and moving images raises the question of how argumentative meanings are able to invest non-verbal semiotic supports. The study of argumentation in work situations also requires us to consider the signifying intention that guides both the action and the argument into account. In both cases, it is necessary to rethink what exactly constitutes a well-constructed corpus within the field of argumentation.<\/span><\/p>\n

(5) vs.<\/em> (6) \u2014\u00a0Argumentation as a linguistic-cognitive activity: Extended or situated?<\/span><\/h3>\n

Should argumentation, as a linguistic cognitive process, be considered a local<\/em> or a general phenomenon<\/em>? (a special kind of passage \/ the general form of discourse?)
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(7) vs.<\/em> (8) \u2014\u00a0Extended argumentation: Saussurian langue<\/em> or discourse?<\/span><\/h3>\n

(7) Argumentation, as a condition for well-formed linguistic chain {E1, E2}:
\nsee Orientation<\/a>
\n(8) Argumentation as a schematization<\/span> of the situation, see Objects of discourse<\/a><\/p>\n

Two different theories have extended the concept of argumentation to all linguistic activities, the theory of Argumentation within Language<\/em> (Anscombre, Ducrot 1983) and the theory of argumentation as a Natural Logic<\/em> (Grize 1982).<\/span><\/p>\n

The former generalizes the concept of argumentation at the level of language (of Saussurian langue<\/em>), while the latter enacts the same generalization at the level of speech (parole<\/em>).<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(9) vs.<\/em> (10) \u2014 Situated argumentation: Monologue or Dialogue?<\/span><\/h3>\n

If argumentation is restricted to some characteristic forms of discourse, then in which type of discourse is it best exemplified, in monologic discourse, or in dialogue?<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(11) vs.<\/em> (12) \u2014 Monologue: Logic or Rhetoric?<\/span><\/h3>\n

(11) Logic<\/a>
\n<\/span><\/h4>\n

(12)\u00a0Bene dicendi<\/em> rhetoric, <\/span>see <\/span>Rhetoric<\/a><\/span><\/h4>\n

(13) vs.<\/em> (14) \u2014 Dialogue: With or without turn taking?<\/span><\/h3>\n

According to the externalization principle (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992, p. 10), dialogical theories either assume that dialogue is the basic form of argumentative activity, or that it is in the form of a dialogue that the argumentative mechanisms of argumentation, can be most clearly seen.<\/span><\/p>\n

Within this set of dialogical approaches, there are distinctions. Does the dialogue have an exchange structure or not? Does the dialogue admit turns of speech? Do all the participants have equal possibility of taking the floor in the same conditions?<\/span><\/p>\n

(13) Argumentation, a dialogue without an exchange structure: The Rhetorical Address<\/span><\/h4>\n

The rhetorical address is a special kind of dialogue, with a polyphonic structure; the voices of the others, especially the opponent’s voice, are rincorporated into the discourse of the speaker who has the floor. The audience intervenes only later and indirectly, as a verdict on the case or a decision on the policy.<\/span><\/p>\n

(15) vs.<\/em> (16) \u2014 A turn-taking dialog: <\/span>Dialogue logic or natural interaction?<\/span><\/span><\/h3>\n

In the case of a dialogue in which there is a possibility of exchange, one of the following two poles will provide the appropriate basis, 1) a logical approach to formal dialogues, or 2) an empirical approach to natural interactions.<\/span><\/p>\n

(15) Argumentation, a formalized critical dialogue<\/span><\/h4>\n

Since the 1970s the Informal Logic and the Pragma-Dialectic theories have reoriented argumentation studies by giving the priority to the study of argumentation as a kind of dialogue.<\/span><\/p>\n

Dialectical-critical theories of argumentation reinforce the constraints of dialogue either through a system of rules designed to embody a rational standard, as in Pragma-Dialectic, or through of a system of critical questions, as in Informal Logic. see Norms<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0(16) Argumentation, a type of ordinary interaction<\/span><\/h4>\n

Proto-argumentative activity is triggered by a lack of ratification by the addressee. Depending on the reaction of the interaction partners, the conversation disruption may pass quickly, being absorbed into the flow of the ongoing task they are engaged in. Otherwise, the interaction might develop into a fully-fledged argumentative situation. In either cases, the argumentative situation is fundamentally governed by interactional principles.<\/span><\/p>\n

This view is compatible with the ancient theory of \u201cargumentative questions<\/a>\u201d (or stasis<\/a>, or point to adjudicate<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\n

For each of these points, the question is not which to adopt and which to exorcise, but to clearly articulate the contrast between the approaches they define.<\/span><\/p>\n

2. Other points of departure<\/span><\/h1>\n

The above table develops from the question of language. Other questions might give rise to alternative maps of the field.<\/span><\/p>\n

2.1 Kind of rationality?<\/span><\/h2>\n

Truth and rationality can be considered:<\/span><\/p>\n