Introduction

Abstract

This special issue represents some of the recent developments within argumentation studies. The following overview provides some historical context for the five papers which constitute this special issue. The Aristotelian roots of modern argumentation studies are briefly presented, as well as some further developments within Greek and Roman rhetoric. Furthermore, the most important developments in argumentation studies during the last few decades are sketched. Several modern approaches to argumentation theory are introduced, among them Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Toulmin’s model of argumentation, formal dialectics, fallacy theory, informal logic, the Argumentum Model and Pragma-Dialectics. Finally, the thematic focus of the five papers is described.

Introduction

The five papers which constitute this special issue represent some of the recent dynamic developments within argumentation studies. In order to provide an historical context for the five papers, I would like, in the following, to present a brief overview concerning/relating to the Aristotelian roots of modern argumentation studies and some of the contemporary developments within argumentation theory. This overview is far from being exhaustive, but at least attempts to summarize the most important developments in argumentation studies over the last few decades.

Rhetoric was established as a serious independent discipline by Aristotle. It has, as its core, a theory of plausible argumentation. Premises of the rhetorical inference (‘enthymeme’), which Aristotle defines as a kind of syllogism (Aristotle 2002, rhet. 1.1, 1355a), are derived from the endoxa, that is, those opinions which are held true by all persons, or the majority of them, or by all experts, or the majority of them, or by the most distinguished experts (Aristotle 2004, top. 1.1, 100a-b). Arguments which plausibly defend a standpoint can be established with the help of argumentative topoi. Unfortunately, Aristotle did not provide a full definition of topoi, but there are plausible reconstructions of the Aristotelian notion of topos. One of these the reconstruction by De Pater (1965: 147ff.), defines the Aristotelian topos as a combination of a device to find arguments (‘formule de recherché’) and a guarantee which grants the plausibility of the step from arguments to conclusion (‘formule probative’) (cf. Rubinelli, 2010 for a slightly different reconstruction).

In this view, topoi are the warrants of argument schemes which enable speakers to plausibly support a controversial point of view and thereby reach a plausible conclusion. Moreover, while Aristotle places a special emphasis on logos (proof by the arguments presented in a speech), he also extensively deals with proof given by the credibility of the character of the speaker (ethos) and proof by eliciting he emotions of the audience (pathos) (Aristotle 2002, rhet. 2.1-17).

A further ancient approach, the so-called status theory, was established by Hermagoras of Temnos (first century BC), and taken up in Roman rhetoric (cf. Cicero 1884, inv. 2.14ff.). It divided all controversial issues into four main categories (constitutiones), with several subcategories, in order to facilitate the finding of arguments, especially in forensic speeches. These constitutiones dealt with four questions: Has a certain action (an alleged crime) been performed or not? (constitutio coniecturalis). How can the action be defined? (constitutio definitiva). How should it be evaluated? (constitutio generalis). And, finally, have all the legal procedures been followed correctly? (constitutio translativa). These constitutiones reappear with some modifications in the modern literature on academic debate (cf. Freeley, 1986). Within this debate tradition, certain stock issues are distinguished, which are relevant for most debates and, therefore, can be useful in finding effective argumentative strategies. For example, the stock issues deal with the ‘existence’ of a problem, its importance (‘significance’), its being inherent in the status quo (‘inherency’), and the effectiveness of a plan (or a counterplan) to solve the problem (‘solvency’; cf. Braet, 1984: 155).

The Aristotelian theory of rhetorical argumentation was passed on throughout Antiquity and the Middle Ages (cf. Kienpointner, 2017). However, from early modern times onward, rhetoric was increasingly reduced to a theory of stylistics, which mainly concerned itself with establishing sophisticated classifications of the techniques of presentation. In this way, rhetoric gradually lost its prominent place as a theory of plausible argumentation within the humanities and almost disappeared completely as a discipline from European universities in the 19th and 20th century.

From the 50s of the 20th century onward, however, a remarkable revival of rhetoric as a theory of argumentation took place. Pioneering studies in this respect were the New Rhetoric as developed by the Belgian philosopher Chaim Perelman and the Belgian sociologist Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca (1983 [1958]), which had the telling subtitle ‘A Treatise of Argumentation’. Equally influential was a book written by the British philosopher Stephen Toulmin, ‘The Uses of Argument’, first published in the same year as the New Rhetoric (Toulmin, 1958). While Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca developed a sophisticated typology of argument schemes, which made use of many of Aristotle’s topoi, but also contributed empirically interesting new argument schemes, Toulmin tried to reduce all more specific argument schemes to a general model of plausible argumentation. Toulmin’s model of argumentation, too, had its forerunners in ancient rhetoric (the so-called epicheirema, cf., for example, Cicero 1884 inv. 1.57; Kienpointner, 1992: 23).

Both Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, Toulmin’s model and the normative theory of argumentation as a domination-free discussion within an ideal speech situation developed by the German philosopher Habermas (1981), were integrated into a complex theory of argumentation by the German rhetorician Kopperschmidt (1989, 2000, 2006).

Equally influential as the return to rhetoric mentioned above, the Australian logician Charles Hamblin paved the way for new developments in the study of fallacies of inference by publishing the book ‘Fallacies’ (Hamblin, 1970) at the beginning of the seventies of the 20th century. Hamblin clearly moved beyond what he called the ‘standard treatment’ of the fallacies, which for centuries had been based mainly on Aristotle’s (1965) Sophistical Refutations. Hamblin’s suggestions were influential both for the development of Formal Dialectics, that is, dialog-based systems of formal logic (cf. Krabbe, 2006 for an excellent overview), and the equally influential logical studies co-authored by the Canadian philosophers John Woods and Douglas Walton (Woods and Walton, 1989).

In the 80s and 90s of the 20th century, Walton turned to a more pragmatic view of the fallacies, and published a great number of books which were dedicated to one or several of the traditional fallacies (e.g. Walton, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2000). Walton plausibly suggested that these traditional fallacies are better viewed as weak, but not necessarily fallacious arguments, which, however, can shift the burden of proof in the absence of strong evidence and more conclusive arguments. Walton considers such arguments as instances of ‘presumptive reasoning’ (Walton, 1992: 34). Together with Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno, Walton published the most elaborate typology of argumentative schemes to date (Walton et al., 2008).

Another influential development, ‘Informal Logic (and Critical Thinking)’, which was also established in the seventies of the 20th century, was initiated by the textbook ‘Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life’, first published in 1971 by the American philosopher Howard Kahane, who took authentic examples from everyday argumentation to illustrate techniques of argumentation and fallacies (Kahane, 2014 [1971]). Informal Logic was then significantly enhanced by the Canadian Philosophers Ralph J. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair by the publication of their book ‘Logical Self-Defence’ (Johnson and Blair, 2006 [1977]). Informal logicians developed criteria and procedures to analyze, evaluate, and construct arguments beyond the means of description by formal logic. For example, the acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency of premises was tested in order to criticize the fallacies of argumentation by Johnson and Blair (2006 [1977]: 63ff.), who also used authentic examples taken from everyday argumentation. Informal Logic also engaged in the teaching of critical thinking. Another distinguished informal logician, the Canadian philosopher Leo Groarke, enhanced recent argumentation studies considerably by developing a framework for the systematic study of visual argument (cf. Groarke, 1996, 2002; Groarke et al., 2016).

A further trend in contemporary argumentation studies concerns the argumentative structure inherent in language. This was first studied in relation to argumentative connectors such as French mais (‘but’) or pourtant (‘yet’), but then more generally concerning all the lexical items of a language by the French linguists Jean-Claude Anscombre and Oswald Ducrot (1983). They revived Aristotelian Topics in order to reconstruct inference relation triggered by natural language items, that is, ‘argumentation within language’ (‘l’argumentation dans la langue’).

Other recent contributions, also from the French speaking corner, concern the emotional aspects of argumentation. Reviving Aristotle’s treatment of ethos and pathos as a means of persuasion, which he considered to be (almost) equally important as logos, scholars such as the French linguists Plantin (1998, 2005), Micheli (2010), et Doury (2016: 126ff.) described the significant impact of emotions on the process of persuasion. In this context, the book ‘Emotional Language in Argumentation’ by Macagno and Walton (2014) on emotional aspects of argumentation, more specifically on persuasive definitions, also needs to be mentioned.

In recent years, yet another revival of the Aristotelian Topics has led to the Argumentum Model of Topics, developed and elaborated by the Swiss linguists Rigotti and Greco (2019) as a theory of the production and analysis of argumentation. This research tradition has contributed significantly to the description of the history of the Aristotelian Topics, but has also produced a new reconstruction of the general structure of arguments and a typology of the most important argument schemes used in everyday argumentation.

The leading and most influential contemporary theory of argumentation, however, was developed by the Dutch linguists Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1992, 2004) from the 80s of the 20th century to the present day. What they called ‘Pragma-Dialectics’ is a comprehensive theory based on descriptive insights taken from speech act theory within linguistics pragmatics, and on normative insights developed further from systems of formal dialectics. In the first period of Pragma-Dialectics, the development of a set of rules which together constitute a code of conduct for rational discussants was the main focus of research. Later, empirical studies were increasingly conducted in order to reconciliate normative and descriptive approaches to argumentation, for example, research on argument schemes (Garssen, 1997). From 2000 onward, several fruitful extensions of the standard theory of Pragma-Dialectics were introduced, such as the concept of ‘strategic maneuvering’, which was developed by Van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002, 2006).

This concept deals with the differing efforts of arguers to produce both rational and efficient lines of argumentation by making the respective selections from the topical potential, by adapting to audience demands and by finding an adequate verbal presentation (Van Eemeren, 2010: 93f.):

First, there is the choice made from the available “topical potential”, the (not always clearly delineated) repertoire of options for making an argumentative move that are at the arguer’s disposal in a certain case and at a particular point in the discourse.

Second, there is the choice of how to adapt the argumentative moves made in the strategic maneuvering to meet “audience demand”, the requirements pertinent to the audience that is to be reached.

Third, there is the exploitation of “presentational devices”, which involves a choice as to how the argumentative moves are to be presented in the way that is strategically best.

Still more recently, the concepts of ‘argumentative pattern’ (a particular constellation of argumentative moves in which a particular argument scheme or a combination of argument schemes is used) and ‘argumentative style’ (a particular way in which an argumentative discourse is conducted by using differing kinds of strategic maneuvering) were added to the analytical toolkit of Pragma-Dialectics (cf. Van Eemeren, 2018; Van Eemeren et al., 2022).

All the developments summarized above, and many more, are carefully described in what is the most comprehensive handbook of argumentation studies to date. It has been co-authored by Frans Van Eemeren and many distinguished specialists in argumentation theory (cf. Van Eemeren et al., 2014).

All five papers which have been contributed to this special issue take up one or more of the theories sketched above. They put these theories to good use by testing them through their application to a carefully chosen type of empirical data. In this way, they all significantly contribute to the enhancement and elaboration of these theories. That Pragma-Dialectics today clearly is the most influential theoretical paradigm within argumentation studies also becomes manifest in these five papers. As far as empirical data are concerned, most of these five papers deal with argumentative genres within the political domain, but other genres and domains are also occasionally included and treated.

The first, ‘A Functional Diversity of Argumentative Styles’, written by Frans Van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, summarizes the results of a series of thorough empirical analyses of argumentative styles across an impressive variety of genres of argumentative discourse and communicative domains: political advertising, parliamentary debates, diplomatic press conferences, a civil court’s judgment, mediators’ opening statements, peer-reviewed research papers, and family-centered medical consultations (Van Eemeren et al., 2022). The results confirm the usefulness of the basic distinction between a ‘detached’ and an ‘engaged’ style, but suggestions for a refinement of this dichotomy are also made.

The second paper, ‘On the Defence of Antifascist Italy in Alcide De Gasperi’s 1946 Speech to the Paris Peace Conference’, has been contributed by Emanuele Brambilla. It explores the impact of argumentative patterns and argumentative style on an important piece of political rhetoric, namely, the speech delivered by the Italian Prime Minister De Gasperi during the 1946 peace talks in Paris on a new post-war political order in Europe. It also deals with problems of translating argumentative discourse, taking the – sometimes inaccurate – English translation of De Gasperi’s speech as an example.

The third paper, ‘Argumentative Strategies to Evade State Apologies: The Turkish Example’, written by Yeliz Demir and Juliette Schaafsma, uses the Pragma-Dialectic concept of ‘strategic maneuvering’ in order to explore the ways in which Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdoğan tries to avoid a formal state apology for the genocide of the Armenian minority committed during World War I by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire in his annual letters of condolence (from 2014 onward) to the Armenian people. These strategies include the avoidance of the word ‘genocide’, while still trying to argue in a rationally acceptable way.

The fourth paper, written by Sara Greco, Barbara De Cock, Chiara Mercuri, and Rebecca Schär (‘Arguing by Best Practice: the Role of Argumentation from Example in Activists’ Social Media posts on Sustainable Fashion’), uses the argument typology developed within the Argumentum Model of Topics and the Pragma-Dialectic concept of ‘argument pattern’ to analyze typical constellations of arguments from example within the discourse of political fashion activists in their Twitter and Instagram posts. These posts were written during the Fashion Revolution Week campaigns toward a more sustainable fashion system in 2020 and 2021.

In the fifth and final paper, Wu Peng/Tian-bao Zhou also rely on the Pragma-Dialectic concept of ‘argumentative pattern’ in their analysis of argumentative replies within the diplomatic domain, namely argumentative strategies during press conferences given by China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (‘Analyzing Prototypical Argumentative Patterns Based on Pragmatic Argumentation in the Spokespersons’ Argumentative Replies at Press Conferences of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’). Here different patterns of complex pragmatic argumentation are analyzed, such as ‘solvency’, ‘maintenance’, and ‘counter plan’. By distinguishing these patterns, the authors take up categories within academic debate literature, the so-called ‘stock issues’.