Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 5 (the Structure of Argumentation)

8/2/2019 Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 5 (the Structure of Argumentation)

1/26

Fundamentals of

Argumentation Theory

The Structure of Argumentation


2/26


Simple argumentation: consists of one single argument Complex argumentation:

> multiple arg.: more than one alternative defense for the samestandpoint

> coordinative arg.: several arguments taken together constitute thedefense of the standpoint> subordinative arg.: arguments supporting arguments

Indicators provide evidence as to the exact nature of the arg. In the absence of such indicators, the analyst should opt for a maximally

argumentative analysis and analyze the arg. as multiple By relying on a well-considered reconstruction of subordinative argumentation,

it is sometimes possible (in a well-defined context), to arrive at a more specificformulation of elements that are left unexpressed


3/26


1.1 Single Arguments

In the simplest case, a defense consists of a singleargument A fully explicit argument consists of two (and only two) premises one of these

premises is usually left unexpressed so that the single argument appears to consist ofonly one premise

A defense consisting in one argument only is very common

The argument is often embedded in a larger discourse that is not primarilyargumentative

(1) In concluding this review of your accomplishments here over the years, John, I wouldlike to congratulate you on behalf of all of us on your 35 years with the company. We

hope you will enjoy the rest of the day, together with your wife and children. You haveearned a substantial gift, and we are proud to offer you this trip to Hawaii, becauseyou have worked very hard for it. Bon voyage!


4/26


Any defense should be broken down into components

The defense in example (1) amounts to one singleargument therefore one cannot break it further than that

One could get a more complex picture, however, if onemade explicit the unexpressed premise underlying thisargumentation i.e., Hard work should be rewarded

Uncovering the unexpressed premise is especiallyimportant if this premise is pursued later in the discussion.


5/26


1.2 Multiple, Coordinative and Subordinative Argumentation

Multiple argumentation: alternative defenses of the same standpoint

the defenses do not depend on each other to support the standpointand are of equal weight

each defense could theoretically stand alone and is presented as if itwere sufficient to defend the standpoint

(2) You cant possibly have met my mother in Marks & Spencers in Sheringhamlast week, because Sheringham doesnt have a Marks & Spencers, and as amatter of fact she died two years ago.


6/26


Coordinative Argumentation: one single attempt at defending the standpoint that consists of acombination of arguments that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defense

the component parts of a coordinative argumentation are dependent on each other fot the

defense of the standpoint

the components may depend on each other in various ways:

- they may be dependent because each argument by itself is too weak toconclusively support the standpoint:

(3) The dinner was organized perfectly, for the room was exactly the right size for the numberof guests, the arrangement of tables was well thought out, and the service was excellent.

- the second argument rules out possible objections to the first argument, therebyreinforcing it:

(4) We had no choice but to go out to eat, because there was nothing to eat at home and allthe stores were closed


7/26


Subordinative Argumentation: arguments are given for arguments the defense of the initialstandpoint is made layer after layer

if the supporting argument of the initial standpoint cannot stand on its own, then it is supported by another argument,and if that argument needs support, then a further argument is added, and so on, until the defense seems conclusive. subordinative argumentation may consist of many layers

(5) I cant help you paint your room next week,

becauseI have no time next weekbecauseI have to study for an exam,because

otherwise I will lose my scholarship,becauseIm not making good progress in my studiesbecauseIve already been at it for more than five years.

the speaker anticipates that certain parts of the argumentation will need further defense. The part to be defendedthen becomes a standpoint, which is defended by means of subargumentation. This subargumentation, in turn, cancontain a subsubstandpoint, which needs to be defended by means of subsubargumentation and so on.


8/26


1.3 The Complexity of the Argumentation Structure

The complexity of argumentation depends on the number of single argumentsit consists of and on the relations between these arguments.

The number of arguments that need to be advanced depends, among otherthings, on the nature of the DO that the argumentation is intended to solve.

e.g., resolving a multiple DO naturally requires more than one single argument:each proposition to be defended or refuted requires at least one singleargument, so if there are several propositions being defended or refuted, thenseveral single arguments need to be put forward:

(6) Although you may not agree, I thought Dickinson was a good president and Sandfordwas not, because Sanford was just a skilled bureaucrat, while Dickinson was reallycreative politician.


9/26


Mixed DOs: more than one party must present a defense, each ofwhich may consist of a single argument or of more complexargumentation:

(7) Max: Sanford was a good president.

Ellen: I entirely disagree.Max: He managed to push a huge budget cut through Congress and

satisfy all objections, while at the same time the wholeeducational system got recognized.

Ellen: All he did was to carry out other peoples ideas in anunimaginative way, without adding a single original idea of his

own. He made a mess of secondary school education, not tomention the damage inflicted on university education it hardlydeserves the name any more.


10/26


The complexity of the structure of argumentation depends on whatobjections it addresses or anticipates: if a protagonist meets with oranticipates objections to certain parts of their argument, then they needto come up with argumentation to defend those parts with still morearguments, thereby creating subordinative argumentation:

(8) Jacobs: John could be let go because he already has 35 years of service andhe wouldnt mind.

Peter: What do you mean, he wouldnt mind?

Jacobs: Well, for quite a while now, he has been talking about wanting to takeit easy and this way he will get the chance to do that.

Peter: But is it really true that he wants to take it easy?

Jacobs: Yes, because he told me so himself.


11/26


The criticism or anticipated criticism being countered by argumentationdoes not always involve the content of the premises (as in example(8)), but it may also relate to their justificatory power the antagonistmay accept a given premise, but still doubt whether it lends sufficient supportto the standpoint.

To counter such criticism, the protagonist may supplement the originalargumentation with other arguments that directly support the standpoint, thuscreating coordinative argumentation:

(9) Will: This is a lousy vacation house; theres not even a corkscrew here.

Ellen: Dont you think you are exaggerating a bit?Will: Yes, but there arent any wine glasses either, the chairs arent comfortable,

and theres no fireplace.


12/26


The antagonists responses or anticipated responses may lead the protagonist to put forward not onlysubordinative and coordinative argumentation, but also multiple argumentation:

Because multiple argumentation consists of several alternative defenses of the same standpoint, eachof which should be sufficient by itself, it might look like overkill one reason for giving additionalarguments is if the protagonist anticipates that one or more of the attempts to defend the standpoint might beunsuccessful (e.g., the argumentation is directed towards a large group of people who may respond differently)

(10) When we designed the poster for train stations, we thought we might need more than just the main slogan:Missed the train? Dont swear! Lots of people might wonderwhy they shouldnt swear. In response to thisquestion, we gave three arguments that we thought most people would see something in. Naturally, we dontexpect each of these reasons in itself to be equally convincing to everyone. (text composed by the SocietyAgainst Profanity for a poster campaign)

Acceptability is a matter of degree: people accept things to a greater or smaller degree. Multiple arguments aregiven because the additional arguments may raise the level of acceptance.

Too many arguments, however, may lead to the opposite effect:

(11) I am not seeing her because I hardly even know her. Im not attracted to blonde women anyway. Besides, withall the budget cuts at work, Im way too busy these days for affairs like that. And dont forget that I still loveyou very much.


13/26


1.4 Representing the Argumentation Structure Schematically

Complex argumentation can always be broken down into a number ofsingle arguments (that is exactly what happens when the

argumentation structure is analyzed)

Single argumentation:

1

John has earned the gift

1.1

John has worked hard for it.

1.1

(Hard work should berewarded)

&


14/26


Multiple argumentation: each argument supports the samestandpoint

1

You cant possibly have met my mother at

Marks & Spencers in Sheringham last week

1.1

Sheringham doesnt have

a Marks& Spencers

1.2

My mother died two yearsago.


15/26


Coordinative argumentation: the single arguments have tobe taken together in order to defend the standpoint

1

We had to go out to eat.

1.1a

There was nothing toeat at home.

1.1 b

All the stores wereclosed.


16/26


Subordinative Argumentation

1

I cant help you paint your room next

week.

1.1

I have no time next week.

1.1.1

I have to study for an exam.

1.1.1.1Otherwise Ill lose my scholarship.

1.1.1.1.1

Im not making good progress in my

studies.

1.1.1.1.1.1

Ive already been at it for more thanfive years.


17/26


Multpiplicity, coordination, and subordination can also occur incombination

1

I cant attend the big peace demonstration.

1.1

I haveproblemswith my feet

1.2

Im going to

be out ofthe countrythat day

1.3 a

I dont entirely

agree with theslogan they areusing

1.3 b

The slogan shouldbe such thateverybody agreeswith it.

1.1.1 aI spenttime in aconcentration camp

1.1.1b

I wasbeaten

2.1

My sister inLondon isgettingmarried.

1.3 a.1Theslogan isbiased.

1.3 a.1.1a

They make it sound like world

peace is being threatened fromonly one side

1.3 a.1.1 b

World peace is

threatened frommany sides.


18/26


Any reasonable evaluation of an argumentation starts from identifying its structure The protagonist may (very rarely) indicate how the argumentation is structured:

(12) Why is the capital letter larger than the lower-case letter? There are six reasons for this, none of them conclusive initself. (the arg. is viewed as coordinated)

The protagonist almost never explicitly indicate how the argumentation is structured

Certain words & expressions may serve as indicators of various types of structure:

indicators of multiple arg.: needless to say, apart from, not to mention, another reason for this is, oneargument for this is, in the first place, secondly, by the way, incidentally, quite apart from, aside from

(13) a. I dont see how you could have expected me to pick you up. In the first place, you have never even told mewhere you live.In the second place, we didnt make any arrangement.Not to mention the fact thatI would havehad to leave work at least an hour earlier.

b. Theres no way to decide whether winning a gold medal is due to talent or training.Aside from the fact thattalent is a very hard concept to define, some champions train a whole lot and others train very little. Quiteanother argument is that nobody has ever managed to say anything meaningful on this subject.Apart from allthis, I would like to point out that the issue is wrongly put.


19/26


indicators of coordinative argumentation: as well as the fact that, in addition to

the fact that, on top of that, and dont forget that, especially because, even,

plus, not only.but also, more importantly.

(14) a. You should give me an allowance.In addition to the fact thatI would liketo buy lunch in the cafeteria, like all the other kids, its a pain to always ask

you for money for school supplies.And dont forget thatI have to save for

entertainment and presents for my friends.

b. Youd be better off studying English than French.Not only is English moreclosely related to Dutch than French is, and therefore easier to learn, butyou

also already know quite a bit. Plus the fact thatyou hear English a lot more on

television, so you know what it should sound like.


20/26


indicators of subordinative argumentation in subordinative argumentation one argument issupported by another one so that each supporting argument is really the beginning of a new roundof argumentation: because, for that reason, therefore, after all, that is why, since, in view of etc.(=standard indicators of argumentation)

(15) The Youth Center performs an important service for the community. It fills the vital need for aplace where young people can stay, because some young people dont have a home to go to,

because their parents dont want them around, since they refuse to adapt their behaviour to whattheir parents want, because they find it suffocating.

certain combinations of general indicators only occur with subordinative argumentation:forbecause, because because, because in view of

(16) a. Id better not stay any longer,for because Im so tired you must find me boring company.

b. I think it is cool because because the color is so bright it is flashing.c. Unfortunately you cant stay overnight at our place.Because in view of the fact thatmy

mother is staying with us, theres not enough room in the house.


21/26


indicators which tend to be used only with coordinative and

subordinative argumentation (they are too pompous to be used

for concluding a single argument and they are not used with

multiple arg.):I conclude that, this follows from, in conclusion, it

follows from this that, taking everything into consideration, all

things considered I believe I am justified in saying that, ergo.

indicators which tend to be used with multiple and coordinative

argumentation: and, also, and also, furthermore,moreover.


22/26


1.6 A Maximally Argumentative Analysis

Coordinative & multiple arg. Are not always easy to distinguish from one another

Sometimes, the only way to tell whether an argumentation is coordinative or multiple is by going bythe content of the arguments:

(17) a. I think I ought to buy this scarf, because its nice and warm and we can always exchange it.(coordinative content the fact that the scarf can be exchanged is not in itself sufficient reason forbuying it; the two arguments need to be taken together)

b. Of course you should buy that laptop. Its not all that expensive, and its OK to be a littleextravagant on something you work with every day, dont you think? (multiple content the twoarguments are taken as alternatives as the second argument takes into account the fact that the firstargument might not be accepted)

Sometimes it is not obvious whether each argument is intended as a separate defense of thestandpoint or whether the arguments are intended to be conclusive only when taken together:

(18) The book was severely damaged during transport. There are scratches on the cover, and the first fivepages are dog-eared.


23/26


If one single argument from within a complex piece of argumentation is unsound, theconsequences differ function of the argumentative structure i.e., whether it iscoordinative or multiple:

> multiple argumentation: since this type of argumentation contains more thanone line of defense, if any of these lines of defense is undermined, the others still standand may still provide conclusive defense of the standpoint

> coordinative argumentation: there is only one line of defense therefore if anypart of it is eliminated, the whole defense is weakened or even destroyed.

Since it may affect the rest of the analysis, it is important to determine as carefully aspossible whether the argumentation is coordinative or multiple.

one should consider: the verbal presentation with possible indicators and any other clues +Communication Principle + the assumption that the speaker is making a serious attempt to resolve

the difference of opinion.

In truly ambiguous situations, opt for an analysis as multiple argumentation > this ensures thateach part of the argumentation is judged on its own merits and that the strength of each singleargument is duly examined = the strategy ofmaximally argumentative analysis


24/26


Coordinative and multiple argumentation are quite commonly foundside by side:

(19) Im not very satisfied with this book, because the price is way toohigh. Secondly, its in French, whereas a lot more people could read

it if it were in English. In the third place, I wasnt allowed to work on it. This argumentation has the following structure:

1. Im not very satisfied with this book.1.1 The price is way too high.

1.2 a Its a French-language book.1.2 b If it were in English, more people would be able to read it.1.3 I wasnt allowed to work on it.


25/26


1.7 Unexpressed Premises and Complex Argumentation

For argumentation that does not have a well-defined context, it is preferable to assumethat there is an unexpressed premise for every incomplete single argument.

For well-defined contexts, it is possible to further specify the unexpressed premise. (itmay even turn out that a whole chain of subordinative arguments was implied and cannow be reconstructed):

e.g., (Situation: the popular singer Madonna appears in a TV add, surrounded by a group ofattractive people and confides to the audience the following message):

You should use Wonder skin lotion. I use it myself!

(reconstructing the unexpressed premise from the verbal presentation and the context):

1 You should use Wonder skin lotion.1.1 Madonna uses Wonder skin lotion.

(1.1) (Whatever Madonna does, you should do too.)= unexpressed standpoint

(1.1.1) (Madonna belongs to the group of glamorous, attractive people)= unexpressed premise

(1.11) (Everything the group of glamorous people does, you should imitate) =unexpressed premise


26/26


The context for e.g., above was well-defined because theTV add in which the argumentation is set provides a clearbackground and because Madonna is a well-knownpersonality the clues are situated outside the verbal

presentation

The verbal presentationmay also provide clues a well-defined verbal context

When evaluating an argumentation both the verbal context andthe context outside the verbal presentation should be checked forclues.

Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Curs 5 (the Structure of Argumentation)

Documents