Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

Open access


Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Aikin S. F. & Casey J. (2011). Straw men weak men and hollow men. Argumen- tation 25(1) 87-105.

  • Aristotle. (1997). Topics. Books I and VIII (transl. intr. and notes by R. Smith). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Barth E. M. & Krabbe E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Benthem J. van. (2009). Foreword. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.) Argumen- tation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. vii-viii). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Blair J. A. (1998). The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12(3) 325-339.

  • Botting D. (2011). Can ‘big’ questions be begged? Argumentation 25(1) 23-36.

  • Bruxelles S. & Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. (2004). Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1) 75-113.

  • Canary D. J. Brossmann B. G. & Seibold D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal 53(1) 18-37.

  • Chen H. (2010). The concept of the “polylogue” and the question of “intercultural” identity. Intercultural Communication Studies 19(3) 54-64.

  • Clark H. H. & Carlson T. B. (1982). Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2) 332-373.

  • Copi I. M. & Cohen C. (1990). Introduction to logic. 8th Ed. New York: Macmil- lan.

  • Dascal M. (2008). Dichotomies and types of debate. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.) Controversy and confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 27-49). Amsterdam: John Ben- jamins.

  • Eemeren F. H. van. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Eemeren F. H. van & Grootendorst R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative dis- cussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Eemeren F. H. van & Grootendorst R. (1992). Argumentation communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum.

  • Eemeren F. H. van & Grootendorst R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumen- tation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Eemeren F. H. van Houtlosser P. & Snoeck Henkemans A. F. (2007). Argumenta- tive indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Fairclough I. & Fairclough N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method for advanced students. London: Routledge.

  • Fogelin R. J. (1985). The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7(1) 1-8.

  • Goffman E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Goodwin C. & Goodwin M. H. (1990). Interstitial argument. In A. D. Grimshaw (Ed.) Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversa- tions (pp. 85-117). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Hamblin C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.

  • Haviland J. B. (1986). ’Con Buenos Chiles’: Talk targets and teasing in Zincant´an. Text 6(3) 249-282.

  • Hymes D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.) Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnog- raphy of communication (pp. 35-71). New York: Holt Rinehart andWinston.

  • Jacquette D. (2007). Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21(2) 115-127.

  • Johnson R. (2000). Manifest rationality. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. (1997). A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in- interaction. Pragmatics 7(1) 1-20.

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. (2004). Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1) 1-24.

  • Krabbe E. C. W. (2006). Logic and games. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.) Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 185-198).Mahwah: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates. Lennox J. G. (1994). Aristotelian problems. Ancient Philosophy 14 53-77.

  • Levinson S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goff- man’s concepts of participation. In: P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.) Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161-227). Cambridge MA: Polity Press.

  • Lewiński M. (2010). Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discus- sion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2) 86-105.

  • Lewiński M. (2011). Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation 25(4) 469-497.

  • Lewiński M. (2013). Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides positions and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1) 151-177.

  • Lewiński M. & Aakhus M. (forth.). Argumentative polylogues in a dialec- tical framework: A methodological inquiry. Argumentation online first:

  • Lewiński M. & Mohammed D. (2012). Disagreeing on the same side of the bar- ricade: Argumentation in multi-party political discussions during the Arab Spring. Paper presented at the 4th International conference Critical Ap- proaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (CADAAD) University of Minho Braga Portugal July 4-6.

  • Maynard D. W. (1986). Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party dis- putes among children (and other humans). Human Studies 9 261-285.

  • Perelman Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J.Wilkinson & P.Weaver. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)

  • Plato. (1921). Theaetetus. Sophist (transl. by H. N. Fowler). Loeb Classical Library 123. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Prakken H. (2009). Models of persuasion dialogue. In I. Rahwan & G. R. Simari (Eds.) Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence (pp. 281-300). Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Quine W. V. (1951). Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review 60(1) 20-43.

  • Quine W. V. & Ullian J. S. (1970). The web of belief. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  • Searle J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Searle J. R. (1992). Conversation. In J. R. Searle et al. (Eds.) (On) Searle on conversation (pp. 7-29). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Spranzi M. (2011). The art of dialectic between dialogue and rhetoric: The Aris- totelian tradition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Sylvan R. (1985). Introducing polylogue theory. Philosophica 35(1) 89-112.

  • Talisse R. & Aikin S.F. (2006). Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20(3) 345-352. Tomić T. (2013). False dilemma: A systematic exposition. Argumentation 27(4) 347-368.

  • Traverso V. (2004). Interlocutive ‘crowding’ and ‘splitting’ in polylogues: The case of a researchers’ meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1) 53-74.

  • Walton D. N. (1992). Nonfallacious arguments from ignorance. American Philo- sophical Quarterly 29(4) 381-387.

  • Walton D. N. (2004). Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum.

  • Walton D. N. & Krabbe E. C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

  • Wimmer F.M. (1998). Introduction. In Special issue on intercultural philosophy. Topoi 17(1) 1-13.

  • Wimmer F.M. (2007). Cultural centrisms and intercultural polylogues in philoso- phy. International Review of Information Ethics 7(9) 1-8.

  • Wittgenstein L. (2001). Philosophical investigations. 3rd ed. G.E.M. Anscombe & R. Rhees (eds.) (transl. by G.E.M. Anscombe). Oxford: Blackwell.

  • Zarefsky D. (2008). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumen- tation 22(3) 317-330.

Journal information
Impact Factor

Cite Score 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.358

Cited By
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 251 167 9
PDF Downloads 172 138 5