Book review

Controversy and Confrontation

Eemeren, Frans H. van – Bart Garssen (eds.) 2008. Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory. Amsterdam and Phildelphia: John Benjamins

Reviewed by Anna Kuzio, School of English, Department of Semiotics, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland.

The contributions in this book can be divided into two parts: (1) those on historical controversies, and (2) those which address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation. Also, two contributions (by Gábor Kutrovátz and Gábor Zemplén) utilize the so-called pragma-dialectical model of argumentation in the study of historical controversy.

The pragma-dialectical model of argumentation, developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004), focuses on analysis and evaluation of argumentation in actual practice. The main aim of the creation of the model was to enable the study of argumentation as a discourse practice and to provide clear guidelines for discussing effectively. The pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a complex speech act that is a part of natural language activities and comprises specific communicative goals (Whaley and Samter 2006: 356). Aiming for systematic integration of the pragmatic and dialectical dimensions in the study of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical theory employs four meta-theoretical principles as its point of departure: functionalization, socialization, externalization and dialectification. Functionalization is accomplished by treating discourse as a purposive act. Socialization is obtained by extending the speech act perspective to the level of interaction. Externalization is achieved by capturing the propositional and interactional commitments created by the speech acts performed, while dialectification is achieved by regimenting the exchange of speech acts to an ideal model of a critical discussion (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 52-53).

It is also possible to divide the contributions into: (1) those which propose either new applications of the Eemeren-Grootendorst model or aim to extend it by introducing the concept of strategic maneuvering, and (2) those which aim to develop the pragmatic part of the model by borrowing from new rhetoric, discourse analysis, and linguistic pragmatics. The following discussion adopts this division.

Part 1

The first group follows the programmatic statement by Eemeren and Garssen (10) that "In the extended pragma-dialectic theory, the gap between dialectic and rhetoric is bridged by means of the theoretical notion of strategic maneuvering." Gerd Fritz states that "Teachers of argumentation skills have always formulated rules or principles for good argumentation" (109), and that historical changes in the acceptance and application of communication principles for controversies are related to changes in the ethics of communication.

Cristina Marras and Enrico Euli stress the importance of refutation and dissuasion in the context of conflict management. They propose the Nonviolent Dissuasion Model, which channels contention into cooperation, while the traditional model does not encourage give-and-take interactions.

Ralph Johnson encourages further development of the dialectical model and concentrates on dialectical obligations. He introduces the notion of the integrity of argument and distinguishes it from the identity of the argument.

Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on the project Conceptions of Reasonableness that ran from 1995 to 2005, the realization of the premise that "the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules can only be investigated by means of empirical research" ( 182). On the basis of the data obtained, they conclude that "the reasonableness conceptions of ordinary arguers are largely in agreement with the theoretical critical norms of pragma-dialectics" (195).

Mark Aakhus and Alena Vasilyeva develop the concept of a disagreement space for the pragmatics of proposing. They conclude that the lines of reasoning in the meeting they analyzed provided ways for participants to prevent the shift from initiation to acceptance and to leave the participants appearing reasonable without having resolved their disagreement.

Gábor Kutrovátz argues that in studying scientific communication a dialectical approach has several advantages over a rhetorical one. In the same vein, Gábor Zemplén tries to show shortcomings of the rhetorical approach and advantages of dialectical models in the study of the Newton-Lucas correspondence. He concludes that the pragma-dialectical model needs further elaboration before "this field-independent framework becomes a useful and accepted tool in the hands of historians interested in the field-dependent aspects of scientific controversies" (270).

Part 2

Marcelo Dascal views dichotomies as strategic argumentation tools that are "not absolute givens, but purpose-dependent constructs" and that can be de-dichotomized, although he insists that "we cannot get rid altogether of dichotomies, especially at the higher (or deeper) levels of abstraction." (47-48)

Anna Regner applies Dascal's chart for describing the structure of controversies and also analyzes the Darwin vs. Mivart polemic in terms of rhetoric. Tomas Lessl operates within the new rhetoric. He poses the question whether the scientific consensus on the causes and future of global warming are strong enough to warrant decisive action and surveys different arguments of the American scientific community. Mirela Saim analyses the 1799 German debate on Jewish emancipation rather in terms of rhetoric. Ademar Ferreira believes that the pragmatics of discourse is of paramount importance for understanding controversies.

Jan van Laar describes a situation where a critic attacks an arguer personally and accuses him of inconsistency. Van Laar states that "this type of criticism will be dealt with as a form of strategic manoeuvring by which an arguer attempts to balance his dialectical with his rhetorical objectives" (163). He concludes that there is a need for "a more detailed theory about the higher order conditions for critical discussion" (178).

Sally Jackson argues that the politicization of science creates a special kind of rhetorical challenge, but although she begins that the position of Jacobs and Jackson (2006) has much in common with pragma-dialectics, she then confirms the affinity between their work and the new rhetoric and considers disagreement to be an interactional problem.

Evaluation:

Controversy and Confrontation is an ambitious cross-disciplinary work. It is successful in linking paradigms one could have thought incommensurable and proceeds easily across vital issues without over-simplification. The essays provide a useful review of the aspects and concepts of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation and extend the notion of argumentation to a variety of discourse types. All in all, the result is an engaging piece of reading that reveals the impact that van Eemeren and Garssen have had on argumentation theory generally. The inspiring contributions provide a good perspective for further research on argumentation theory as well as cognitive linguistics.

To my mind, however, the collection would have done well without the two last contributions (by Kutrovátz, and Zemplén) for two reasons: a) the pragma-dialectical model needs no further advocacy; b) the creators of the model and their followers are already working on the elaboration of that model.

References

Van Eemeren, F.H. 2001. Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press.

Van Eemeren, F.H.1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa : University of Alabama Press.

Whaley, Bryan B. – Samter, W. 2006. Explaining communication: contemporary theories and exemplars. Mahwah, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Eemeren, F.H. - Grootendorst, R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Links

© 2002-present ICLA; all rights reserved.
Site admin information and contact