Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate About Advocating

Jean Goodwin 1
  • 1 Iowa State University

Abstract

Far from being of interest only to argumentation theorists, conceptions of speech acts play an important role in practitioners’ self-reflection on their own activities. After a brief review of work by Houtlosser, Jackson and Kauffeld on the ways that speech acts provide normative frameworks for argumentative interactions, this essay examines an ongoing debate among scientists in natural resource fields as to the appropriateness of the speech act of advocating in policy settings. Scientists’ reflections on advocacy align well with current scholarship, and the scholarship in turn can provide a deeper understanding of how to manage the communication challenges scientists face.

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

  • Aron, William, Burke, William, & Freeman, Milton. (2002). Scientists versus whal- ing: Science, advocacy, and errors of judgment. BioScience, 52(12), 1137.

  • Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Barry, Dwight, & Oelschlaeger, Max. (1996). A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 905-911.

  • Blockstein, David E. (2002). How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience, 52(1), 91-96.

  • Brussard, Peter F. & Tull, John C. (2007). Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 21-24.

  • Craig, Robert T. (1996). Practical-theoretical argumentation. Argumentation, 10, 461-474.

  • Craig, Robert T. (1999).Metadiscourse, theory, and practice. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 21-29.

  • Craig, Robert T. (2011). The uses of “argument” in practical metadiscourse. In Robert C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change (pp. 76-86). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

  • Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen. (1995). Grounded practical theory: The case of intellectual discussion. Communication Theory, 5(3), 248-272.

  • Craig, Robert T. & Tracy, Karen. (2010). Framing discourse as argument in ap- pellate courtrooms: Three cases on same-sex marriage. In Dennis S. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social change (pp. 46-53). Washing- ton, DC: National Communication Association.

  • Doury, Marianne. (2008). “Ce n’est pas un argument!” Sur quelques aspects de th´eorisations spontan´ees de l’argumentation. Pratiques, 139/140, 111-128.

  • Eemeren, Frans H. van & Grootendorst, Rob. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.

  • Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Jackson, Sally, & Jacobs, Scott. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.

  • Ehninger, Douglas & Brockriede, Wayne. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.

  • Foote, Lee, Krogman, Naomi & Spence, John. (2009). Should academics advocate on environmental issues? Society and Natural Resources, 22(6), 579-589.

  • Gill, Bruce R. (2001). Professionalism, advocacy, and credibility: A futile cycle? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 21-32.

  • Goodwin, Jean. (2007a). Argument has no function. Informal Logic, 27, 69-90.

  • Goodwin, Jean. (2007b). What, in practice, is an argument? In Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale, J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson (Eds.), Dis- sensus and the search for common ground (pp. 1-44). Windsor, ON: OSSA.

  • Goodwin, Jean. (2013). Norms of advocacy. In Dima Mohammed & Marcin Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation (pp. 1-18). Windsor, Ontario: OSSA.

  • Grice, H.P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 62, 397-388.

  • Houtlosser, Peter. (1994). The speech act “advancing a standpoint”. In Frans H van Eeemeren & Rob Grotendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 165-171): SicSat.

  • Houtlosser, Peter. (1998). Points of view. Argumentation, 12(3), 387-405.

  • Houtlosser, Peter. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In Frans H. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 169-184). Amsterdam: SicSat.

  • Jackson, Sally. (1985). What can speech acts do for argumentation theory? In J. Robert Cox, Malcolm O. Sillars & Gregg B. Walker (Eds.), Argument and social practice (pp. 127-138). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.

  • Jackson, Sally. (1992). Virtual standpoints and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260-269). Am- sterdam: SicSat.

  • Johnson, Ralph H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument.

  • Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Karr, James R. (2006). When government ignores science, scientists should speak up. BioScience, 56(4), 287-288.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (1995). The persuasive force of arguments on behalf of proposals. In Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair & Charles A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation: Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 79-90). Amsterdam: International Centre for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative bur- dens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245-266.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (1999). Arguments on the dialectical tier as structured by propos- ing and advising. In Christopher W. Tindale, Hans V. Hansen & Elmar Sveda (Eds.), Argumentation at the century’s turn: Proceedings of the third OSSA Conference. St. Catharines, ON: OSSA.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (2001). Argumentation, discourse, and the rationality underlying Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning. In Eniko T. Nemeth (Ed.), Cogni- tion in language use: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 149-163). Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (2002). Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argu- mentation. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 97-118). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (2009).What are we learning about the arguers’ probative obliga- tions. In Scott Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument (pp. 1-31). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. (2012). A pragmatic paradox inherent in expert reports addressed to lay citizens. In Jean Goodwin (Ed.), Between scientists & citizens: Pro- ceedings of a conference at Iowa State University, June 1-2, 2012 (pp. 229-240). Ames, IA: Great Plains Society for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. & Fields, John. (2003). The presumption of veracity in testi- mony and gossip. In J. Anthony Blair, Daniel Farr, Hans V. Hansen, Ralph H. Johnson & ChristopherW. Tindale (Eds.), Informal Logic @ 25.Windsor, ONT: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

  • Lach, Denise, List, Peter, Steel, Brent & Shindler, Bruce. (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. BioScience, 53(2), 170-178.

  • Lackey, Robert T. (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12-17.

  • Lovejoy, Thomas. (1989). The obligations of a biologist. Conservation Biology, 3(4), 329-330.

  • Meine, Curt & Meffe, Gary K. (1996). Conservation values, conservation science: A healthy tension. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 916-917.

  • Meyer, Judy L., Frumhoff, Peter C., Hamburg, Steven P. & de la Rosa, Carlos. (2010). Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 299-305.

  • Mills, Thomas & Clark, Roger. (2001). Roles of research scientists in natural re- source decision-making. Forest Ecology and Management, 153, 189-198.

  • Minnis, Donna & Stout McPeake, Rebecca. (2001). An analysis of advocacy within the wildlife profession. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 1-10.

  • Moran, Richard. (2006). Getting told and being believed. In Jennifer Lackey & Ernest Sosa (Eds.), The epistemology of testimony (pp. 272-306). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Morrison, Thomas A. & Ayres, Matthew P. (2010). Speaking out: Weighing ad- vocacy and objectivity as a junior scientist. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(1), 50-55.

  • Myers, N. (1999). Environmental scientists: Advocates as well? Environmental Con- servation, 26(3), 163-165.

  • Nelkin, Dorothy. (1977). Scientists and professional responsibility: The experience of American ecologists. Social Studies of Science, 7(1), 75-95.

  • Nelson, Michael & Vucetich, John. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scien- tists:What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090-1101.

  • Nielsen, Larry. (2001). Science and advocacy are different-and we need to keep them that way. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6(1), 39-47.

  • Noss, R. (2007). Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 18-20.

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J. Robert Cox & Charles Arthur Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3-23). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

  • Paglieri, Fabio & Castelfranchi, Cristiano. (2010). Why argue? Towards a cost- benefit analysis of argumentation. Argument & Computation, 1(1), 71-91.

  • Philipsen, Gerry. (1992). Speaking culturally: Explorations in social communication. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

  • Pielke, Roger A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Plantin, Christian. (1996). L’argumentation. Paris: Le Seuil.

  • Plantin, Christian. (2002). Argumentation studies and discourse analysis: The French situation and global perspectives. Discourse Studies, 4(3), 343-368.

  • Schneider, Stephen H. (1988). The greenhouse effect and the US summer of 1988: Cause and effect or a media event? Climatic Change, 13(2), 113-115.

  • Scott, J. Michael & Rachlow, Janet L. (2011). Refocusing the debate about advo- cacy. Conservation Biology, 25(1), 1-3.

  • Scott, J.Michael, Rachlow, Janet L. & Lackey, Robert T. (2008). The science-policy interface: What is an appropriate role for professional societies? BioScience, 58(9), 865-869.

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

  • Stampe, Dennis. (1967). On the Acoustic Behavior of Rational Animals. Photocopy.

  • University of Wisconsin-Madison. Madison, WI. 97 Steel, Brent, List, Peter, Lach, Denise & Shindler, Bruce. (2004). The role of scien- tists in the environmental policy process: A case study from the American west. Environmental Science and Policy, 7(1), 1-13.

  • Tracy, C. Richard & Brussard, Peter F. (1996). The importance of science in con- servation biology. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 918-919.

  • Walton, Douglas. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Wiens, John A. (1997). Scientific responsibility and responsible ecology. Conserva- tion Ecology, 1(1), 16.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search