Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies

Open access

Abstract

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.

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: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x.

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.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

The Journal of University of Bialystok

Journal Information


Cite Score 2017: 0.28

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.136
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.293

Cited By

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 147 147 18
PDF Downloads 90 90 17