MANAGING DISAGREEMENT: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS WITHIN A DIALECTICAL FRAMEWORK.

• Author: van Eemeren, Frans H.

1. THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL THEORY OF ARGUMENTATION

   In the 1970s, inspired by Karl Popper's critical rationalism, an approach to argumentation was developed at the University of Amsterdam that aimed for a sound combination of linguistic insight from the study of language use often called 'pragmatics' and logical insight from the study of critical dialogue known as philosophical 'dialectics' (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984). Therefore, its founders labelled this approach pragma-dialectics. In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is viewed as a phenomenon of verbal communication; it is studied as a mode of discourse characterized by the use of language for resolving a difference of opinion. Its quality and possible flaws are measured against criteria connected with this purpose.

   In the 1980s, a comprehensive research programme was started. This programme was, on the one hand, based on the assumption that a philosophical ideal of critical rationality must be developed, in which a theoretical model for argumentative discourse in critical discussion could be grounded. On the other hand, the programme's point of departure was that argumentative reality has to be investigated empirically to achieve an accurate description of actual discourse processes and the various factors influencing their outcome. In the analysis of argumentative discourse the normative and descriptive dimensions were to be linked together by a methodical reconstruction of the actual discourse from the perspective of the projected ideal of critical discussion. Only then, the practical problems of argumentative discourse as revealed in the reconstruction could be diagnosed and adequately tackled. [1]

   Crucial to grounding the pragma-dialectical theory in the philosophical ideal of critical rationality is a model of critical discussion. The model provides a procedure for establishing methodically whether or not a standpoint is defensible against doubt or criticism. It is, in fact, an analytic description of what argumentative discourse would be like if it were solely and optimally aimed at resolving a difference of opinion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, 1992). The model specifies the resolution process, its stages and the various types of speech act instrumental in each stage. Four stages are distinguished: the 'confrontation' stage, where the difference of opinion is defined; the 'opening' stage, where the starting point of the discussion is established; the 'argumentation' stage, where arguments and critical reactions are exchanged; and the 'concluding' stage, where the result of the discussion is determined. At every stage, specific obstacles may arise that are an impediment to the resolution of th e difference. The pragmadialectical rules, which provide a definition of the general principles of constructive argumentative discourse, are designed to prevent such obstacles, traditionally known as fallacies, from arising-and to enable the analyst to point them down.

   Apart from its critical function, the model of a critical discussion serves a heuristic goal in the reconstruction of implicit or otherwise opaque speech acts that are relevant to a critical evaluation (van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Jackson and Jacobs 1993). A pragmadialectical reconstruction is aimed at achieving an analytic overview that provides a description of the difference of opinion that lies at the heart of the discourse, the point of departure chosen in dealing with the difference, the arguments put forward to resolve it, the argumentation schemes employed, and the argumentation structure (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992: 93-94).

2. STRATEGIC MANEUVERING IN ARGUMENTATIVE DISCOURSE

   In a pragma-dialectical analysis of argumentative discourse, the parties engaged in the discourse are assumed to share an orientation toward resolving a difference of opinion. This means that they are regarded committed to the norms instrumental in achieving this purpose-maintaining certain standards of reasonableness and expecting others to comply with the same critical standards. [2] Having this commitment, however, need not prevent them from attempting to resolve the difference of opinion in their own favor. In practice, their speech acts may be assumed to be designed to achieve precisely this effect. In other words, we recognize that there is also a rhetorical aspect to argumentative discourse. Meanwhile, the participants have to maintain the image of people who play the resolution game by the rules: they are responsible for what they have said, assumed or implicated.

   The balancing of a resolution-minded dialectical objective with the rhetorical objective of having one's own views accepted is prone to give rise to strategic maneuvering. Generally, the parties will attempt to make use of the opportunities available in the dialectical situation for steering the discourse rhetorically in the direction that serves their own interests best. An adequate reconstruction of argumentative discourse should take such strategic maneuvering duly into account.

   When dealing with strategic maneuvering, we think that rhetorical moves can best be viewed as operating within a dialectical framework. [3] A dialectical analysis leads up to a critical evaluation that transcends a mere appreciation of the effectiveness of the discourse. Schiappa warns that 'typically, from the standpoint of argument evaluation, our standards are lowered once a text is dubbed rhetoric' (1995: x). 'When historical events become "rhetorical histories",' he observes, 'the issue becomes primarily one of effectiveness rhetorical histories are persuasive even if they are unreasonable' (1995: xi). We agree with him, and other argumentation theorists, such as Wenzel (1990), who are of the opinion that just rhetorical criticism will not do, but should be taken one step further toward dialectical criticism aimed at preventing arguments from being accepted as reasonable when they are not.

   An understanding of the role of strategic maneuvering in resolving disagreements can be provided by revealing how the opportunities available in a certain dialectical situation are used to handle that situation most favorably for the speaker or writer. Each stage in the resolution process is characterized by a specific dialectical aim. As the parties involved want to realize this aim to their best advantage, they can be expected to make strategic moves that serve their interest best. So, the dialectical objective of a particular discussion stage always has a rhetorical analogue. Because what kind of advantages can be gained depends...