ArgLab Research Colloquium
Av. de Berna 26, Edifício ID, sala 1.06
Towards an account of goals in public political arguments
The study of goals in argumentative discourse was informed by the research investigating the interplay between participants’ goals and the discourse choice they make (e.g. Tracy & Coupland, 1990). Besides, argumentation scholars have been concerned with the nature and status of these goals. Different approaches to argumentation have formulated different accounts. For example, within the pragma-dialectical approach, only rational persuasion is considered the intrinsic goal of argumentation; all other goals are considered extrinsic (van Eemeren, 2010). Alternatively, Walton and Krabbe (1995) distinguish between different types of (argumentative) dialogues, each of which is defined on the basis of its goal. Another account is provided by Gilbert (1996, 2007) who emphasises that argumentation is usually aimed at several face and task goals, with no fixed hierarchy.
In this paper, I critically examine the main accounts of goals in argumentative discourse, aiming to formulate an account that is suitable for the examination of public political arguments, where typically multiple legitimate goals are pursued simultaneously. Such arguments are viewed as contributions to what can be dialectically reconstructed as multiple simultaneous discussions. They are analysed as strategic manoeuvres that can under certain conditions be reasonable but may as well, if such conditions are violated, become fallacious (van Eemeren & Houtlosser, 2002).
Eemeren, F. H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Gilbert, M. A. (1996). Goals in argumentation. In D. M. Gabbay & H. J. Ohlbach (Eds.) Practical Reasoning: International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning (pp. 223-230). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Gilbert, M. A. (2007). Natural normativity: Argumentation theory as an engaged discipline. Informal Logic, 27(2), pp. 149-161.
Tracy, K. & Coupland, N. (1990). Multiple goals in discourse: An overview of issues. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1), pp. 1-13.
Walton, D. and E. C. W Krabbe. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. New York: State University of New York Press.
2nd ERB Project Workshop
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Why the Situated…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | Friendly Sensorimotor Generalists
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Transparency in Extended…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | Dehumanization and the Question of Animals
ArgLab Research Colloquium | Pragmatic functions of gesture on different…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | The role of trust in argumentation
ERB Masterclass 2020
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | A situated approach…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | Philosophy for Children and the Socratic…
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | The Structure of…
THE INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON THE DISCURSIVE MANAGEMENT OF POLITICAL DISAGREEMENT
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Interpersonal communication and…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | Conceptual Engineering: Under our Control?
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "Discursive depoliticisation: From argumentation to explanation"
Lisbon Mind & Reasoning RIP Seminar | Wittgenstein, Buddhism, and…
ArgLab Research Colloquium | "More than words: Worldmaking and stancetaking…