Proleptic argumentation.

• Author: Walton, Douglas
• Position: Report

Proleptic argumentation, as defined in this paper, refers to the anticipation and answering of an objection or opposed argument before one's opponent has actually put it forward. As shown in the paper, proleptic argumentation can be inappropriate, or even illegitimate in some instances, and even associated with some traditional fallacies like poisoning the well, because it is a way of preempting an opponent's move in a reasoned discussion in which participants are supposed to take turns. Despite these dangers, proleptic argumentation is a highly valuable rhetorical tool that can be used to help persuade an audience that you are attempting to be reasonable and trying to take their viewpoint and interests into account. The eloquence of the most eminent orators, such as Demosthenes, Cicero, Burke, and Lincoln, is based on a dialectical sensibility marked by a well-developed capacity to recognize and counter argumentative objections (Left, 1999, p. 510). If you are writing a proposal, and you have not anticipated plausible objections, your argument is likely to appear shallow and unpersuasive.

Six examples of proleptic argumentation are used to pose the basic problem that needs to be solved in order to build up a clear definition and account of the basic structure of this type of argumentation. The aim is to systematically start towards building tools that will be useful not only for analyzing cases, but also for helping an advocate to employ proleptic argumentation as a rhetorical tool. Automating proleptic argumentation would be an extremely difficult task, as there usually any number of ways a clever opponent could attack your argument, and it does not seem possible that all of the most powerful ways could be anticipated in advance. Still, it is contended that a beginning can be made towards taking steps to address this problem constructively.

The basic problem for proleptic argumentation posed in this paper is how to guess in advance what the most powerful objections of your opponent are likely to be. Four methods for solving this problem are built from the base of current resources already available in argumentation studies. The first method is based on argumentation schemes, standardized forms of argument joining a set of premises to a conclusion. Recent research has formulated and classified sixty such schemes (Walton, Reed, & Macagno, 2008). The second is based on the use of rebuttal tactics, many of which have already been studied and categorized in the literature on fallacies. The third method is based on the concept of commitment in different types of dialogs (Walton & Krabbe, 1995) representing types of conversational exchanges in which argumentation takes place. An arguer's commitment set represents the position he has taken in previous moves in the dialog. Knowledge of your opponent's position is a resource for proleptic argumentation against it. The fourth method is to practice your argument on an intellectual opponent who is opposed to your position in order to see what kinds of objections she makes.

The last three methods (especially) are inherently dialogical in nature, in that they need to take into account not only the form of the given argument (its argumentation scheme) but how that argument was used for some purpose in a communication exchange. It needs to be added as a qualification that the first method is also partly dialogical. Ultimately the conclusion of the paper is that to give a good account of the normative structure of proleptic argumentation of a kind that in the end will prove to be practically useful, the theory on which the project is to be built will need to be dialogical in nature.

1. Defining Proleptic Argumentation

   The word 'prolepsis' is descended from the Greek word prolambanein, to anticipate, and its five meanings in English share this common root. The first meaning is a figure of speech in which a future event is referred to before it happens. A classic example is the sentence, "If you tell the cops, you're a dead man." The second meaning is the use of a word in anticipation of the circumstances that would make it applicable. In the sentence, "They drained the lake dry," the term "dry" only applies after the lake has been drained. The third meaning is a philosophical term used in ancient epistemology by Epicurus and the Stoics to indicate a preconception, a pre-theoretical awareness that can lead to true knowledge of the world. The fourth, and possibly the most general and common meaning, is the technique of anticipating in any type of speech or text some response, and incorporating in that speech some attempt to reply to the response in advance of its being explicitly made. For example, a story-teller might make a statement at one point in a narrative that refers to some part of the story told at a later point. This fourth meaning is so broad that it includes the fifth more specific meaning: the anticipation and answering of an objection to an argument within the putting forward of the argument itself, before one's opponent has put the objection forward. This fifth meaning is called 'proleptic argumentation' in this paper, and it is the object of study.

   'Proleptic argumentation' in the sense used in this paper refers to the anticipation and answering of an objection or opposed argument before one's opponent has put it forward. The temporal word 'before' is key in this definition. To be proleptic in this sense, an argument must be directed to the commitment (standpoint, position) of the other party. All persuasive arguments (Walton & Krabbe, 1995), it can be argued, are of this sort. It must respond to an objection, criticism, or reservation of the other party (the audience) before the point in the sequence of argumentation where that other party has actually voiced the objection. Note also that this definition is narrow in the sense that it refers only to proleptic arguments. It does not include other types of move that can be made in argumentation, like the asking of a question that contain a reply to the question before the answerer has even had an opportunity to respond to it. A classic example is the ancient question, "Have you stopped beating your grandfather?" This question is proleptic in the fourth meaning of the term above, because it is a form of speech, the asking of a question that anticipates a response, and replies to it. Indeed it anticipates both responses, 'yes' and 'no', the only two direct responses allowed, and condemns the respondent to being guilty of the offence alleged, before he even gets an opportunity to answer the question.

   There appears to be very little written, almost nothing, in modern argumentation studies on proleptic argumentation that is very useful for helping such studies move forward to provide useful tools and a well structured theory that would be of assistance in helping an advocate to construct proleptic arguments in a systematic manner. It would appear that proleptic argumentation fits, in modern argumentation studies, under the heading of strategic maneuvering in argumentation. Strategic maneuvering is described as a means to reconcile the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical aims in argumentation (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2006). Strategic maneuvering is quite legitimate and appropriate in a critical discussion or in other types of conversational exchange in which argumentation is used, like negotiation and public debate. However, it is also recognized that traditional informal fallacies of the kind studied in logic can be viewed as species of derailment of strategic maneuvering (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2006, p. 381). A case in point that has been studied in the recent literature on argumentation is the use of persuasive definitions, definitions that convey an emotive attitude, positive or negative, merely in the act of naming (Zarefsky, 2006). Like proleptic argumentation in general, the use of persuasive definitions is often an appropriate method of strategic maneuvering in a conversational exchange aimed at persuading an audience. However, as will be shown in this paper, proleptic argumentation, like the use of persuasive definitions, has often been associated with fallacies, and can certainly be a tricky and deceptive tactic of strategic maneuvering.

   Proleptic moves in argumentation found in mitigation discourse in law have been studied empirically by Martinofsky (2006). She found that proleptic moves are very common in court discourse of this sort, and often take the form of evasive answers to questions posed in examination. She cites numerous examples in which a defendant uses a proleptic tactic contesting an accusation made in the prosecutor's question. Proleptic argumentation certainly appears to be very common in legal discourse, and is also often very powerful as a strategic rhetorical tool in legal argumentation.

   Recent research has explored the rationale of rhetoric in strategic maneuvering in normative models of argumentation of the kind studied in argumentation theory (Tindale, 2006). Theories of argumentation have stressed the underlying reasonableness of moves made in conversational exchanges designed to resolve a conflict of opinions or move toward uncovering the truth of the matter being discussed. However, it has been emphasized by Tindale that participants in such exchanges want...