2010 Conference: Abstracts

To find an abstract of a conference paper, please click on the letter that the surname of the paper’s (first) author begins with.

Damiano Canale (Bocconi University, Milan) & Giovanni Tuzet (Bocconi University, Milan)

Inferring the intention

What can be inferred from the silence of the legislature about a certain circumstance? What kind of intention, if any, can be attributed to the silent legislature? We show in the first part of the paper that antithetical claims can be inferred from it, depending on the assumptions that one uses as premises of the argument purported to show what the legislative intention is. In the second part of the paper we propose an inferential analysis of these assumptions, which specifies the pragmatic conditions under which such opposite uses of the argument are justified. The study of these conditions leads us to highlight the connecting function of the argument from intention in legal argumentation, and some interesting features of counterfactuals in legal reasoning.

Paola Cantù (Université de Provence, Aix-Marseille) & Italo Testa (Università degli Studi di Parma, Parma)

Algorithms and arguments

Given the fact that the notion of algorithm cannot be satisfactorily determined by a merely formal characterization, the paper will investigate similarities and differences between arguments and algorithms. If the concept of an algorithm, like the notion of argument, can be defined as a network of related concepts,  it might be interesting to extend the multidisciplinary and pragmatic approach that is typical of argumentation theory to the analysis of the role of algorithms in communication practices. We will thus first propose an informal characterization of algorithm that is based on a pragmatic analysis of the role of the receiver in the interpretation of a sequence of linguistic acts, and then  consider similarities and differences between algorithms and arguments, devoting particular attention to some issues that might be useful to clarify the pragmatic aspects of argumentation analysis.

Linda Carozza (York University, Toronto)

Emotional arguments, personality theory, and conflict resolution

How we think about, work with, or respond to emotional arguments, academically, professionally, or personally, has (unsurprisingly) little consensus. In lieu of proposing a normative system for the emotional mode, which seems to be a next needed movement as far as emotional arguments are concerned for the field, this paper discusses parallels between Personality Theory and Argumentation Theory. I demonstrate work within argumentation that overlaps with concepts in personality theory and argue that knowledge of (some) personality theories, by arguers themselves or impartial third parties (i.e. theorists, mediators, etc.), can help elucidate the dynamics of the emotional mode of argumentation. This ultimately suggests a much broader means – that is both theory-based and pragmatically-inclined – of articulating, analyzing, and responding to emotional arguments. I end with a case scenario where both emotional arguments are present and tools from personality theory can be implemented.

M. Kelly Carr (University of Baltimore, Baltimore), & Amanda Reid Payne (Independent Scholar, Jacksonville) & Marilyn J. Young (Florida State University, Tallahassee)

War memorials and legal argument:  Interpreting commemorative symbolism

This paper will examine the case of Salazar v. Buono to explore the argumentative connection between religious symbols and public memorials. This case raises a number of issues salient to the study of legal argument. First, what is the relationship between religious symbols and memorials? Who decides what reading to attach to a particular symbol? What argumentative role does intent play in resolving disputes of public commemoration? What is the role of ideology vs. religion in arguments about legal standing to initiate a lawsuit? Using textual and rhetorical analysis, this paper will address both the assumptions underlying the arguments offered by the Government when it appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and the enduring public policy implications that may arise, depending on the final outcome of the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Begoña Carrascal (University of the Basque Country, Donostia-San Sebastian) & Miguel Mori (University of the Basque Country, Donostia-San Sebastian)

Argumentation schemes in the process of arguing

The interest in the practical role that argumentative schemes play in the process of producing argumentation is increasing in different settings, for instance, for educational purposes or in cooperative interactions between multiple agents in AI settings. We analyse the role of argumentative schemes in the process of arguing and their interaction with other sides of argument production in the framework of a problem solving strategy that includes different modules relative to the knowledge and the organization of the information about the issue, the motivation to participate in the task, the adaptation to the addressee and to the argumentative context, and the use of the language. Although in this work we focus especially in written argumentation, in our opinion, the role and importance of the above mentioned constitutive elements change in oral and written argumentation and depend also on the different types of dialog.

Annalisa Cattani (Università di Trieste, Triëst)

Contemporary trends: Between public art and guerrilla advertising

One of the most interesting form of contemporary art is Public art. Born as a form of guerrilla art, the term refers to works of art in any media that have been planned to be sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all. Advertising shows something similar in the so-called guerrilla advertising, which avoids the institutional displays in order to create unexpected performances and installations, which are not immediately recognizable as commercials. It was born as the voice of creative but low budget agencies, but now it is used as a new trend even by rich and famous brands. Does guerrilla advertising put into question contemporary art creativity?

Leah Ceccarelli (University of Washington, Seattle)

Controversy over uncertainty: Argumentation scholarship and public debate about science

Several scholars have written about the creation of doubt in the public sphere over a scientific claim for which there is no significant controversy within the scientific community. They call it “manufactured uncertainty”, “agnogenesis”, or “scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs).” In their naming of this phenomenon, these scholars emphasize the amplification of doubt through fraudulent scientific methods like the cherry picking of data and the manipulation of statistical standards. This paper suggests that argumentation scholars can contribute to the study of this phenomenon by focusing on another aspect of it that is being obscured by the terministic screen of scientific uncertainty production. By renaming it manufactured controversy and examining the rhetorical dynamics of these cases, argumentation scholars can reveal the ways political agents who would manufacture a scientific controversy exploit balancing norms in journalism, law, and politics, and deploy powerful appeals to open-mindedness, freedom of inquiry, and fairness.

Borut Cerkovnik (University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana)

Fallacy “Ad Hominem Tu Quoque” in Slovenian political communication

In Slovenian political language fallacy “Ad Hominem Tu Quoque” usually appears in following (non-classical) form: Person A claims X. Person B asserts that X is not true (enough). Person A asserts that B’s actions or past claims are consistent with the truth of claim X. Therefore X is not (so) false. This form of fallacy is used to make someone’s claim (position, action) stronger that it actually is or to justify it. In the paper, the use of this fallacy in Slovenian politics (parliament) – providing its frequency and examples – will be analyzed. Through examples it will be established whether stated form of “Tu Qouque” fallacy could be somehow legitimate. The answer will be: no.

Francis Chateauraynaud (EHESS, Paris) & Marianne Doury (CNRS, Paris)

The collective making of temporal aspects in public debates

The present paper deals with the processes by which actors involved in controversies produce competing representations of the temporal modalities of action and judgment, which play a crucial role in the dynamics of arguments.  By examining, from a dual (both linguistic and sociological) perspective,  the way argumentative processes and world events are connected, we investigate the functions and uses of argument schemes (e.g. causal reasoning, precedent, slippery slope argument …) and linguistic indicators supporting the stakes of temporality (such as "now", "fatally", "so inevitable," "possibly”, "later"). Our contribution will be grounded on a computerized analysis of a large series of major controversies and polemics. The analysis will focus on significant situations, in which the relationships between past events and visions of the future constitute a major issue of the debate. Many examples will be taken from issues like nuclear power and radioactive waste, climate change, GMOs, pesticides, nanotechnologies, etc..

Martha S. Cheng (Rollins College, Winter Park)

Towards a narrative theory of ethos

This paper works toward a narrative theory of ethos. It uses Discourse Analysis to investigate the interplay between narrative and ethos in Colin Powell’s 2003 pre-war speech to the United Nations. The study suggests that defining features of narrative, specifically plotting and character positioning, contribute to ethos in ways often overlooked when studying deliberative discourse. Powell plots what I identify as the “New Story of Iraq” by using the “Old Story of Iraq.” This plotting reveals ethical qualities demonstrating shared values with the audience and reflecting a common form of “folk psychology.” The plot’s evaluative and modal qualities also affirm Powell’s personal conviction of the narrative’s veracity, which strengthen his ethotic appeal. Powell further strategically positions himself, US intelligence agencies, and his audience to emphasize the reliability of his information. Thus, despite the absence of indisputable evidence, Powell’s speech persuaded much of the American public.

Lynn E. Clarke (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh)

Towards the concept of traumatic social controversy

Writing in the theoretical-practical context of pluralistic constitutional democracies, Jürgen Habermas came to see controversy as vital to the critical-rational function of the public sphere.  Nevertheless, as G. Thomas Goodnight argued, despite the prevalence and democratic value of controversy, it has yet to receive the study it deserves.  Using critical-interpretive analysis, this paper identifies and defines a particular kind of controversy that suggests a new direction for public argument research.  Beginning with Olson and Goodnight’s theory of social controversy, which highlights the mutually exclusive “oppositional arguments” that sustain deep-seated disagreements, the paper digs “deeper” to argue that collectively (i.e. publicly) unrecognized feelings may also play a role in the oppositional character and, therefore, protraction of these disputes.  Suggested by preliminary studies of deep disagreements between culturally marginalized and privileged social groups, this phenomenon warrants study of a new category of dispute that I call traumatic social controversy.

Daniel H. Cohen (Colby College, Waterville Maine)

Going for broke: The meta-argumentation of desperation strategies

Arguments are open-ended in at least three ways: questions about the justification for one’s premises can lead to an infinite regress; raising procedural issues can move the argument to the meta-level and another sort of regress; and the possibility of new objections is always present. It is remarkable that closure is ever reached! The line between the dialectical tier and meta-level argumentation is porous. Ground-level objections to an argument can be recast as criticisms of the argument and responses to anticipated objections can be included in the initial argument. The fact that objections can be cast as meta-commentary does not mean that they should be. The conceptual distinction is necessary for identifying important and relevant differences among such formally comparable “desperation arguments” as Kantian transcendental arguments, Reichenbach’s pragmatic meta–argumentation, and, when rational, game-theoretic “going for broke” strategies.

John M. Collins (East Carolina University, Greenville)

Agent-relative fallacies

Some patterns of reasoning that are not in themselves fallacious are still fallacious forms of reasoning relative to a particular individual, due to her epistemic situation.  For example, Van Fraasen has argued that abduction is not an acceptable rule of inference.  Suppose, for sake of argument, that although van Fraasen’s position is rational, he is incorrect, and suppose that he sometimes employs abduction.  What is at issue is whether abductive inference can confer justification on an inferred conclusion for one in van Fraasen’s epistemic situation.  I will argue that in some cases, the epistemic situation of the agent prevents his otherwise unexceptionable inference from being rationally acceptable.  This claim will be sharply distinguished from commission of the tu quoque fallacy.  My position is that certain epistemic failures in the agent ensure that an otherwise correctly performed inference is not rationally justified. 

Mihaela-Viorica Constantinescu (University of Bucharest, Bucharest)

Re-presenting argumentation in the traditional Romanian parliamentary debate

In the community of practice represented by the Parliament, the argumentative reality is often far from the ideal of a critical discussion. In the parliamentary discourses, re-presenting and evaluating the arguments provided by other MPs appears as a common practice. The main goal of this communicative strategy is to show disagreement and to enter a counter-argumentation (polemical purpose). The analysis will be based on the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Some insights from the pragma-rhetorical approach will be added. Our aim is to analyze the way MPs re-present other-argumentation, the implicit and explicit mechanisms used for the refutatio. The examples are excerpted from debates of the late XIXth century Romanian Parliament. The focus will be on the means used to refute arguments and standpoints, including the manipulative, sometimes fallacious re-presentation.

Ana-Maria Cozma (University of Turku, Turku)

The modal dimension of argumentation

In this paper I propose an argumentative semantics approach of modality, in line with the Argumentation within Language Theory [Anscombre & Ducrot]. I adopt the perspective of the Argumentative Probabilities Semantics [Galatanu], which posits an argumentative dimension inherent to lexical meaning, while retaining the referential dimension which ascriptivists reject. In addition, Galatanu provides her theory with a dynamic model of meaning description where the concepts of stereotype and modality play a crucial role. Endorsing this view, I focus on the connection between modality and argumentation, which I show to be a privileged one, by examining a series of words: modal words, such as ‘cautious’ or ‘protest’, and non-modal words, such as ‘house’ or ‘car’, that can nevertheless acquire a modal load according to the context they are used in. Thus, I will discuss the lexical contribution to argumentation, which, in my view, is as significant as the more common rhetoric one.

Robert T. Craig (University of Colorado, Boulder)

Arguments about ‘rhetoric’ in the 2008 US presidential election campaign

Barack Obama’s prowess in the art of rhetoric was much noted during the 2008 US presidential election campaign and became a stimulus for public debate on the necessities, values, and dangers of rhetoric as a political-communicative practice. Extending previous work on normative concepts and arguments in ordinary metadiscourse, this paper examines arguments about rhetoric that appeared in the public metadiscourse of the campaign. Three broad issues of debate concerned the relation between rhetoric and reality, grounds for judging the authenticity of a speaker, and the dangers posed by a cult of personality. These issues engage the three validity claims of truth, sincerity and rightness in Habermas’s theory of communicative action. The debate calls for reflection on the legitimate role of rhetoric or “strategic maneuvering” in argumentation and evokes classic themes in rhetorical theory concerning the legitimacy of rhetoric as a communicative practice in its own right.

James Crosswhite (University of Oregon, Eugene)

What makes argumentation reasonable? Three accounts

Argumentation studies has progressed as a field by developing broader notions of rationality than the mere validity of formal reasoning. However, what is the actual authority of the standards of rationality used in the different approaches of argumentation studies? Specifically, is there a way to distinguish standards of rationality from other kinds of standards? I want to press these questions against three different approaches to argumentation theory. First, against the receptivity standard associated with rhetoric. Second, against the procedural standards of the pragma-dialectical approach, according to which the most reasonable arguments will conform to the rules of a critical discussion and survive critical testing. Third, against the genre standards for different kinds of argumentation defined by Douglas Walton in The New Dialectic, according to which conformity to generic strictures and avoidance of genre-shifting constitutes reasonable argumentation.