Chapter 1. Uncontroversial arguments
-
Michel Dufour
Abstract
Most contemporary argumentation theories stress the pragmatic and interactive aspects of argument. Some even claim that any argument takes place in a dialectical and/or dialogical context, based on a preliminary disagreement. Hence all arguments could be said to be controversial. I propose a revision of this view, based on a distinction between dialogical and dialectical, two terms often considered as synonymous. I suggest they do not entail each other and an agonistic connotation is associated only to dialectic. A second suggestion is that, unless you make it a postulate, an argument does not always presume a preliminary disagreement between individual arguers or communities. There are arguments which are not controversial. I admit that it is possible to imagine a virtual opponent to any standpoint but, in practice, sometimes nobody opposes our arguments. This may happen when someone puts forward strongly field or disciplinary dependent arguments in front of people who are beginners or outsiders with no opinion about the standpoint at stake. This may look like borderline cases, but this kind of situation is quite frequent in the media. Hence, in practice there are uncontroversial arguments and argumentation theories should take into account that the reach of argument goes beyond expert controversies and across unforeseen communities.
Abstract
Most contemporary argumentation theories stress the pragmatic and interactive aspects of argument. Some even claim that any argument takes place in a dialectical and/or dialogical context, based on a preliminary disagreement. Hence all arguments could be said to be controversial. I propose a revision of this view, based on a distinction between dialogical and dialectical, two terms often considered as synonymous. I suggest they do not entail each other and an agonistic connotation is associated only to dialectic. A second suggestion is that, unless you make it a postulate, an argument does not always presume a preliminary disagreement between individual arguers or communities. There are arguments which are not controversial. I admit that it is possible to imagine a virtual opponent to any standpoint but, in practice, sometimes nobody opposes our arguments. This may happen when someone puts forward strongly field or disciplinary dependent arguments in front of people who are beginners or outsiders with no opinion about the standpoint at stake. This may look like borderline cases, but this kind of situation is quite frequent in the media. Hence, in practice there are uncontroversial arguments and argumentation theories should take into account that the reach of argument goes beyond expert controversies and across unforeseen communities.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices 1
-
Section I. Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
- Chapter 1. Uncontroversial arguments 21
- Chapter 2. Connection premises 39
- Chapter 3. Argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content 57
-
Section II. Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
- Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable 73
- Chapter 5. Reason and passion in political rhetoric 99
- Chapter 6. Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online 127
-
Section III. Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
- Chapter 7. The interpreter-mediated police interview as argumentative discourse in context 151
- Chapter 8. Context and genre in judicial argumentation 177
-
Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
- Chapter 9. Caught between profitability and responsibility 197
- Chapter 10. Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type 229
- Chapter 11. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization 259
-
Section V. Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
- Chapter 12. Visual arguments in activists’ campaigns 291
- Chapter 13. Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring 317
- Subject index 341
- Name index 339
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Cross-disciplinary perspectives on context-specific argumentation practices 1
-
Section I. Theoretical perspectives on argumentation – revisited
- Chapter 1. Uncontroversial arguments 21
- Chapter 2. Connection premises 39
- Chapter 3. Argumentative and non-argumentative rhetorical content 57
-
Section II. Argumentation practices in political discourse environments
- Chapter 4. Questioning the questionable 73
- Chapter 5. Reason and passion in political rhetoric 99
- Chapter 6. Interpersonal style(s) in diplomatic argumentation online 127
-
Section III. Argumentation practices in legal discourse environments
- Chapter 7. The interpreter-mediated police interview as argumentative discourse in context 151
- Chapter 8. Context and genre in judicial argumentation 177
-
Section IV. Argumentation practices in debates on societal and family issues
- Chapter 9. Caught between profitability and responsibility 197
- Chapter 10. Multi-participant TV debate as an argumentative activity type 229
- Chapter 11. The transmission of what is taken for granted in children’s socialization 259
-
Section V. Argumentation practices in multi-modal discourse environments
- Chapter 12. Visual arguments in activists’ campaigns 291
- Chapter 13. Attacks on the cartoonist’s strategic manoeuvring 317
- Subject index 341
- Name index 339
