On the role of topical potential in the concluding stage: a pragma-dialectical case study of Lysias I, on the death of Eratosthenes.

• Author: King, Abigail Selzer
• Position: Report

ON THE ROLE OF TOPICAL POTENTIAL IN THE CONCLUDING STAGE: A PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL CASE STUDY OF LYSIAS I, ON THE DEATH OF ERATOSTHENES

Pragma-dialectical argumentation theory can be broadly understood in the philosophical tradition that begins with Plato and Aristotle in considering the roles and functions of language. Although pragma-dialectics aims at an innovative reconciliation between dialectical, logical, and rhetorical views of argumentation, many classical theoretical constructs appear in the pragma-dialectic literature. For example, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2000) pointed to rhetorical figures such as praeteritio, concilliatio, and prolepsis for their role in argumentative discourse, and Rigotti (2006) discusses the use of topics or topoi in the study of argumentation and contextual factors. This is not to say that pragma-dialectics is slavishly devoted to classical authorities, but it seems reasonable to characterize both classical Greek and Roman thought as key resources for the theoretical research program of pragma-dialectics.

The pragma-dialectical use of classical authorities highlights a few main figures: Plato and Aristotle dominate the Greek side, while Cicero and Quintilian represent the Romans. It seems worth noting, however, that the works of the classical authorities are not spontaneous expressions of brilliance but a combination of contextual influences and the ingenuity of a particular author. In the introduction to his translation of Aristotle's On Rhetoric for example, Kennedy (1991) identified several environmental factors that influenced Aristotle's work including the contributions of the sophistic tradition to Attic thought, Socrates' critique of the sophistic tradition, and more generally the socio-political changes that occurred as the Athenian city-state adjusted to the reforms of Clisthenes. As such, it seems that considerations of the contextual elements as well as contributions of other classical writers may prove to be a valuable resource for understanding classical thought in the context of pragma-dialectical argumentation studies.

Thus, this essay uses a classical example to further elucidate a component of pragma-dialectical theory. We begin with a theoretical discussion of pragma-dialectical theory that focuses on topical potential, a construct that considers how a discussant strategically chooses which contributions to a discussion will be most advantageous to her position (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). This discussion focuses on the role of topical potential in the concluding stage that, we argue, has yet to be fully conceptualized. Our case study focuses on a Lysian forensic oration titled On the Death of Eratosthenes. Our argumentation analysis tracks Lysias' use of topical potential and its eventual role in the concluding stage. This analysis concludes by proposing some specific characteristics that can further clarify the role of topical potential in the concluding stage.

BALANCING PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL STANDARDS OF REASONABLENESS AND STRATEGIC AIMS

Pragma-dialectical theory describes argumentation as a process with the goal of achieving a reasonable resolution. Within this framework, argumentative moves in an exchange are held to a normative standard of reasonableness to determine whether they make a productive contribution to an argumentative process, and whether they assist or inhibit a reasonable resolution (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2002). Generally, argumentation is considered acceptable when it has successfully passed a critical test. This testing is driven by the ten rules of critical discussion that have been proposed by pragma-dialectical theorists (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992). These rules identify certain rights and obligations that interlocutors need in order to pursue a reasonable resolution. These include, for example, the right to advance standpoints and the obligation to retract a standpoint if its defence has failed (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992). When these rules are violated the discussion has been derailed and is no longer focused on a reasonable resolution.

Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2001) expanded the rules for critical discussion through the construct of strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering aims to integrate some rhetorical insights into the model of critical discussion and thereby increase the degree to which pragma-dialectical analysis can account for the strategies used by discussants in naturally occurring argumentative discourse (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2006). This integration aims to bridge the "yawning conceptual and communicative gap" in argumentation theory that has separated dialectical and rhetorical perspectives (p. 382). Strategic maneuvering is specifically designed to retain the balance between descriptive and normative components of pragma-dialectical theory. Thus, strategic maneuvering focuses on rhetorical strategies that allow discussants to follow the rules for critical discussion and maintain a focus on a rational resolution. In the context of pragma-dialectics, rhetoric is the "study of potential effectiveness of argumentative discourse" (p. 383). Strategic maneuvering, then, reframes this conceptual gap as a need for balance: discussants who want to remain in a critical discussion need to develop a kind of equity between their dialectical goals and rhetorical aims.

Strategic maneuvering recasts three rhetorical elements into the pragma-dialectical framework: topical potential, audience demand, and presentational devices (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2006). Topical potential, the focus of the analysis that follows, refers to the options that a speaker has in determining how a particular contribution to a critical discussion can be framed in the way most advantageous to her position. The exploitation of topical potential occurs when discussants negotiate the boundaries of a disagreement in order to identify a standpoint that is maximally advantageous to their position (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). This strategic standpoint selection dictates which lines of argument can be advanced because it defines what evidence is relevant or irrelevant to the point at issue. Indeed, finding the most effective way to approach an issue or to define a standpoint is central to Aristotle's description of rhetoric. His widely quoted definition of rhetoric as the ability to "see the available means of persuasion in each case" (1355a) addresses this same point: there are many ways to articulate a difference of opinion and it is a speaker's goal to find the most effective one.

According to van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2000) the role of topical potential is most pronounced at the opening stage of an argumentative exchange when discussants are identifying their standpoints. The pragma-dialectical model of critical discussion is divided into four stages: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002). In the confrontation stage, discussants state their difference of opinion, and in the opening stage they elect to enter a critical discussion and identify the starting points. Here, the use of topical potential is a tool that discussants can use to identify and advance a rhetorically advantageous standpoint.

In the argumentation stage, discussants present arguments and evidence to defend a standpoint. Recent work by Rigotti and the Argumentum group (2006) investigated the role of topical potential in the argumentation stage. Specifically, they were interested in the connection between topical potential and the rhetorical tradition of the topics as an "argument generator" (Rigotti, 2006, p. 521). The role of topical potential in the argumentation stage helps a discussant identify which lines of argument are available in the context of the previously defined standpoints. Finally, the parties evaluate the discussion in the concluding stage to identify the degree to which the difference of opinion has been settled and whose standpoint has prevailed. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) write that in the concluding stage, "all efforts will be directed towards achieving the concluding of the discourse desired by the party concerned, by pointing out, for instance, the consequences of accepting certain complex arguments" (p. 140). In this stage, the topical strategies developed throughout the critical discussion are brought to culmination.

Although pragma-dialectics incorporates the possibility of using topical potential exploitation in the concluding stage, this has yet to be theoretically conceptualized in detail or given an illustration in a case study. Moreover, the specifics of its function have not been clearly differentiated from two other theoretical constructs: first, the distinctions between a concluding stage and a concluding stage with...