English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In this paper the author argues in favour of applying analysis, particularly in relation to argumentative discussions, and presents a theory for adoption äs the toöl for the normative analysis of argumentative discourse. The argument for normative analysis consists of a demonstration ofthe Van Ferneren and Grootendorst dialectical argumentation theory in Operation. Confining the analysis to the Identification of the type of dispute charactenzing the confrontation stage of a critical discussion, the analytical Instrument is applied to a specimen of political discourse, the purpose of this exemplary analysis being to compare dialectical analysis with pure description. Tfie author points out some advantages of normative reconstruction in terms of surveyability and discernment. l. Dialectical analyis and the description of discourse In my opinion, a theory of verbal communication and interaction which purports to be practical must be normative äs well äs descriptive. In this paper, therefore, I would like to make a plea for a normative extension of the prevailing methodology in discourse analysis. I shall substantiate my contention on the basis of a dialectical analysis of the confrontation stage of a political discussion. In order to comment constructively on a sample of discourse, one has to know the purpose of the verbal utterances comprising this discourse and to what extent the verbal behaviour is adequate in view of this purpose. Verbal acting is a form of goal-directed behaviour and has to be treated accordingly. 0165-4888/86/0006-0001 $2.00 Text 6(1) (1986), pp. 1-16 © Mouton de Gruyter, Amsterdam 2 Frans H. van Eemeren This means that in order to get satisfactory analyses, Systems of norms muist be established which are relevant to the various types of discourse. Risky äs; it may be, a normative element has to be incorporated in the theorizing processs. The modification in the description of discourse I propose does not simply consist of paying attention to norms which are äs a rule operative in languafge use, äs for example the Gricean maxims. Any and all norms which may fuirther the pursuit of a particular language goal must be taken into account. Tlhis may result in the construction of Systems of norms which are partially dlisregarded by the language-users involved or which are even unknown to therm. In order to avoid inconsistencies and other defects, every System of nonms proposed for analytical purposes must be scrutinized with respect to both its 'problem validity', relating to the language goal concerned, and its int(ersubjective validity', relating to the language-users. A normative construict evaluated in this way is suitable for an adequate description and appreciati<on of particular samples of discourse. Characteristic of the normative conception advocated here is that it is a dialectical one. It relates to argumentative discourse and, äs a matter of principle, every argumentation is considered pari of a critical discussion aimed ai resolving a conflict ofopinion, regardless of whether the dispute and discussüon are externalized or not. A discussion which is critical in a dialectical semse takes place between a protagonist of a standpoint and one pr more languageusers who, rightly or wrongly, are considered to fulfil the interactional role of antagonist. In the most simple form of a fully-fledged dispute, one language· user has explicitly cast doubt upon another language-user's explicitly avowed positive or negative standpoint. Unfortunately, life is seldom äs simple äs that and real discourse, äs a rule, does not simply reflect the dialectical ideal. Nevertheless, this definition sup· plies us with a practical starting point for further considerations. It may be the case that the protagonist happens to anticipate a discussion which wil never be verbalized; he is just trying to parry an imaginary attack. Putting t even more strongly: he may be trying to solve a dispute which does not exist But in all these cases, the moment he argues, the very fact of his argumentation testifies to the legitimacy of a dialectical approach to argumentation In my opinion, this dialectical approach needs to be allied (among othe* allies) to the functionalist speech act approach, in a so-called normativ? pragmatics. Dialectical analysis of argwnentative discourse 3 2. Dialectical characterization of disputes about opinions Language-users who have externalized a difference of opinion and have ernbarked on a dispute about an opinion could, of course, leave it at that, but very often they will undertake an attempt to resolve the dispute, äs postulated in dialectical theory. Disputes are resolved when the language-users who have expressed doubt about points of view have withdrawn these expressions of doubt or when language-users who have advanced points of view retract those points of view. To resolve a dispute by way of a critical discussion, the language-users have to go through several stages of discussion which, although they need not always be explicit, correspond to the stages in the resolving of the dispute. According to our dialectical theory, a critical discussion passes through four discussion stages: the confrontation stage, during which the dispute is externalized; the opening stage, during which agreements are reached concerning the manner in which the dispute and the discussion are to be conducted; the argumentation stage, during which argumentation is advanced and reacted to; and the concluding stage, during which it is established how the discussion is concluded. Although all four stages are indispensable, on this occasion I will occupy myself only with the confrontation stage. In the confrontation stage of a discourse analyzed dialectically äs a critical discussion a difference of opinion becomes apparent between a language-user advancing a point of view and a language-user (in many cases a different one) casting doubt on that point of view or, in more complex cases, even arguing against it. The language-users then have a dispute about an expressed opinion, and an analysis of the confrontation stage consists of identifying the type of dispute. Disputes may be categorized according to their complexity. I shall here identify four Standard types of dispute. In the first place, I believe, it is necessary to differentiate between single and multiple disputes. Single disputes have to do with one and no more than one opinion. Multiple disputes have to do with more than one opinion. Multiple disputes can always be broken down into a number of single disputes, äs is the Situation in the following example: Peter: 'You should never take an aspirin with milk, and you shouldn't drink so much either.' Agnes: 'Are you sure about the aspirin? And why shouldn't I drink when I feel like it?' 4 Frans H. van Ferneren In the second place, I believe it necessary, when analyzing disputes, to distinguish between simple and compound disputes. In simple disputes only o>ne (positive or negative) point of view is advanced with respect to an opinion. In compound disputes two contradictory points ofview (one positive and ome negative) are propounded with respect to one and the same opinion, äs in the following example: Peter: 'You should never take an aspirin with milk.' Agnes: On the contrary: you should!' Simple single disputes, in which a single positive or negative point of view with regard to a single opinion is advanced and subjected to doubt, represent the baue form of dispute. All the other Standard types of dispute can be analyzed äs composites of simple single disputes. If we indicate the expression of doubt with a question mark, we can then characterize the two variants of the basic form of a dispute as^follows: (a) Peter: 'You should take an aspirin with milk!' Agnes: 'Should I?' Analysis of(a) äs a simple single dispute: party I : +/p (party I = Peter) partyll : ?/(+/p) (party II = Agnes) (b) Peter: 'You should never take an aspirin with milk!' Agnes: 'Shouldn't I?' Analysis offb) äs a simple single dispute: party I : -/p (party I = Peter) partyll : ?/(-/p) (partyll = Agnes) It is important to observe that expressing doubt, while it may accompany tfo adoption of the opposite point of view, is not identical to the adoption of the opposite point of view. In variant (a) of the basic form of dispute, fa example, Agnes does not necessarily have to take the position that you shoull not take an aspirin with milk, and in variant (b) she does not necessarily hav3 to take the position. that you should. Not all disputes need be compounc. Besides compound multiple disputes and compound single disputes, simpe multiple disputes and even simple single disputes can also occur. Dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse 5 Since dialectical analysis of the confrontation stage of a critical discussion consists of an identification of the type of dispute at the heart of the discussion, the analysis amounts to establishing the exact composition of the conflict of opinion underlying the discussion. Crucial for this is the detection of standpoints, positive or negative, and expressions of doubt, explicit or implicit. When these are known, further analysis is äs easy äs shelling peas. Unfortunately, in real discourse, standpoints and doubts are often only implicated or tacitly assumed, so that serious problems of Interpretation may arise. 3. Analysis of a sample of political discourse Let us now analyse the confrontation stage in a sample of political discourse. For the sake of clarity, in this institutional context I will concentrate on a deliberation of party representatives trying to reach agreement on the question of whether or not to vote for a proposal concerning the abolition of a certain provision of the Act of Settlement. Before revealing their standpoint to the public, they have to reach a unanimous position on the matter, and this means there is no need for them to play up to the audience, äs politicians so often do, but the

Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse