Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A critical discussion = an ideal type of argumentative discourse aimed at resolving a difference of opinion by determining whether the standpoints at issue ought to be accepted or not.
4 stages: the confrontation, the opening, the argumentation, and the concluding stage (in practice) the argumentative discourse corresponds only partly with this model
An analysis of an argumentative discourse must examine to what extent the discourse can be reconstructed as a critical discussion.
At first I wasnt sure whether I agreed with you, but I have to admit you are right. Now that I have heard all your reservations, Ive come to think that my standpoint isnt so strong after all
(2) During the health care debate, the Italian Prime Minister got his way by forcing the issue to a vote, which the socialist party lost. Clearly, however, not all of the socialist members of the Cabinet are convinced of the desirability of the new policy measures.
To be able to deal with a difference of opinion in a rational way, there needs to be an argumentative discussion (= a discussion in which argumentation is employed in such a way as to determine to what extent a given standpoint is defensible) vs. Informative discussion: serves primarily to convey information
Obs. 1. In real-life discussions, informative and argumentative elements are often combined. 2. When the discussion is not simply aimed at informing sb. about sth., it is best to view it as an argumentative discussion.
argumentative discussion
a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion takes place between a party who defends a certain (+/-) stdp, the protagonist, and a party who challenges this stdp, the antagonist > during the discussion, protagonists try to convince antagonists of the acceptability of their stdps, while the antagonists keep raising doubts and objections
Obs. when the antagonist counters the stdp of the protagonist with an opposing, he/she becomes the protagonist of the opposing stdp.
1.
2.
The opening stage: the parties decide to resolve the DO > they assign the roles of protagonist and antagonist + they agree on the rules of discussion and on the starting points
> in a mixed DO there are two protagonists and two antagonists
(3) The Light Athletic Association leadership recently met to discuss the future of athletics.
This is undoubtedly a praiseworthy effort. Dick Loman gave an enthusiastic report of this meeting and invited anyone not present to join in the discussion. I am answering his call by expressing my opinion in this article.
Part of the discussion concerns whether or not to further centralize the training of athletes. And this is the point I would like to speak to. For years, centralized training has bothered meNot because of.but primarily because of.. And so I repeat: do away with centralized training.
> Opening stage: the author announces his status as protagonist; no other reference to the opening stage> discussion rules and other starting points are often taken for granted and do not require explicit mention > Confrontation stage: the author puts forward the standpoint that centralized training should be done away with > Argumentation stage: complete (not repeated here on account of space) > Concluding stage: explicit (even though the author speaks for himself)
These discrepancies between theory and practice do not diminish the usefulness of the model which retains an important critical function:
- the model may be a tool for identifying where real-life argumentative discussion goes wrong: it makes it possible to identify what necessary elements are missing or inadequately represented
e.g., comparison with the model makes it possible to say that, in one instance the discussion fails bc. The DO has not been clearly identified, whereas in another instance it fails bc. roles have not been properly assigned or because discussion rules have not been agreed on etc.
Heuristic function:
- the model may be an instrument for analyzing a discussion in a constructive manner: one may identify more easily the elements that are only implicitly present in the discussion + the various elements of the discussion can be analyzed in a way that clarifies their role in the resolution process
> mixed DO: each party has a stdp which requires defending > each party presents a case for their stdp (4)
Even if the other party does not participates, his point of view is still taken into account:
The protagonist explicitly refers to the potential objections of a real or imaginary antagonist
(5) There is no other country in the world where women are as well integrated into the army as in Norway and dont go bringing up the case of Israel, because in Israel women dont fight in the front lines. Have you ever seen women soldiers in one of those intifadah photos?
- An example of Implicit Critical Discussion: the monologue defending a standpoint a one-way dialogue
Outset: they need to establish that a difference of opinion exists or threatens to arise (confrontation stage) They have to make it clear that they are prepared to resolve the DO by following certain rules for argumentative discussions; they may briefly mention these rules and any starting points (opening stage) They present their own argumentation, perhaps referring to the views of an opposing party (argumentation stage) They need to assess to what extent the difference of opinion has been resolved by their argumentation (concluding stage)
2.
3.
4.
Selected Bibliography
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter/Foris