truth is connected to people and dependent on their definition of truth. .... tendency to defer to experts, sometimes without question. ... Is the expert credible?
Argument Discourse DONALD G. ELLIS University of Hartford, USA
Argument has a long and noble history in the study of communication. Argument discourse, in contrast to traditional structural approaches to argument, is more sensitive to social actors in an interactive relationship who are trying to reconcile incompatible positions by engaging in “conversational reasoning.” Argument discourse focuses on the role of individuals in communicative relationships and their naive attempts to make a claim that is subject to reason (Willard, 1978). Conversational reasoning is a pragmatic experience based on presumptive reasoning or conclusions drawn from a speaker’s remarks in a context and embedded into the issues that constitute the relationship. Presumptive reasoning is statistical in nature and assumes certain odds characterize the relationship between two concepts. These odds are subject to the psychological, cultural, and situational conditions of the interaction. Argument discourse develops its own standards of plausibility and rationality and these things might change as the communication continues.
Historical development Traditionally, argument has been studied as a closed system organized according to structural rules. For the longest time, the most rigorous study of argument was philosophical in nature. Philosophers were primarily concerned with truth and its logical nature. A syllogism, for instance, is an example of an elemental argument structure. Accordingly, a statement (A = B) and (B = C) and therefore (A = C) is logically true with an inescapable and undeniable conclusion. The ancient struggle between philosophy and rhetoric embodies these tensions, which is the primary tension between philosophers and their claim to irrefutable truth and rhetoricians who are more concerned with effects. To this day, those seeking rigorous truth hold more prestige than those who claim to find ways to persuade audiences. This distinction between rhetoric and philosophy continues to be one between truth and pragmatism; that is, one school of thought is concerned with truth in the purest sense of the term and such truth can only be achieved by the closed fist of logic. Moreover, truth is independent of what people think about it; truth is not the result of persuasion, manipulation, or cultural characteristics. The other school of thought argues that truth is connected to people and dependent on their definition of truth. Additionally, truth makes no sense if it is not understood and accepted by an audience or recipients. This second school of thought emanating from the rhetorical tradition forms the intellectual heritage of the argument discourse perspective. A proponent of truth rather than The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, First Edition. Karen Tracy (General Editor), Cornelia Ilie and Todd Sandel (Associate Editors). © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781118611463/wbielsi022
2
A R G U M E N T DI S C O U R S E
argument effects can make a strong claim to the discovery of truth but this claim holds no force or attraction without the acceptance of it by others. A speaker or writer might make an appeal to authority that is wholly justified but that appeal will not matter if the authority is not accepted by the recipients. A religious person who uses the Bible as an authoritative source of history or knowledge will be unreceptive to scientific arguments to the contrary. Recent developments in argument theory and discourse have led to the distinction between two uses of the word “argument.” And that is the distinction between making an argument and having an argument (O’Keefe, 1977). Making an argument is a rhetorical act but constructed by the lone individual, and is a technical process of finding the most ideal connection between a claim and evidence to support the claim. Having an argument is an interpersonal experience. It is an exchange between two people where one person is trying to gain the assent of the other. The issue is not truth but acceptance. You have an argument when two or more people perceive themselves as holding incompatible positions. Argument discourse is argument as dialogue rather than monologue. The two sides see themselves as polarized and must negotiate the differences through argument. Argument discourse is less concerned with technical correctness or rationality than it is with the social processes (e.g., personal, emotional, political, and cultural) that motivate the interactional setting. A debate between political opponents is an example of argument discourse. Candidate A, for example, might accuse candidate B of being a “liberal” and therefore supportive of stricter gun-control laws. The syllogistic structure in the logical truth tradition is that (a) all political liberals support more gun control, (b) my opponent is a liberal, and (c) therefore my opponent will be supportive of gun control. But people do not actually argue this way and the syllogism is structurally logical but not substantively. Terms such as “liberal,” “gun control,” and “supportive” are subject to definitional ambiguities that generate the argumentative discussion. In the tradition of argument discourse and “having an argument” the two sides would struggle over the meanings of these terms and attempt to communicate person-centered meanings. In other words, the two sides would clash over the definition of a liberal, just what constituted gun control, and other semantic implications of the argument. This definitional and meaning clash is what constitutes the argument discourse as one side tries to manage the meaning in the interaction.
Discourse and argument The act of “making” an argument and “having” an argument are now combined into a single discourse of argumentation and are composed of three components. First, discourse is a solution for carrying out disputes that require a process of definition and justification for a particular position. Second, arguers must fashion their claims on the basis of others, which requires social, contextual, and goal-oriented thinking. Even a solitary activity like writing requires an imaginary addressee, to whom the argumentation is directed. And third, argument is part of daily thinking (Billig, 1987). It plays
A R G U M E N T DI S C O U R S E
3
a role in daily decisions about routine life. Argument discourse includes counterargument and social practice involving ways to bring about joint thinking and interaction designed to converge opinions that are attempting to justify a particular view. Argument discourse utilizes the methods of discourse analysis to study argumentation. This means that there is a focus on interactional sequences that structure and regulate the arguments taking place in a conversational environment. The discourse tradition also provides discourse-based techniques for investigating argumentation. Conversation analysis is a helpful instrument for analyzing argumentation in conversational discourse (cf. Jackson & Jacobs, 1980). The discourse tradition of argument focuses on statements to defend a position or deny the other’s position and how the argument works to restore the strength of each individual position. The structure of an argument—argument, counterargument, and reply—matches the structure of discursive interaction as one member initiates a claim (argument), this is followed by a counterargument, and the initiator of the argument replies. These represent the minimum unit of analysis for describing the interactive process of belief change. The discourse perspective on argumentation is in contrast not only with the traditional isolated act of making an argument, but with the pragma-dialectic perspective (→pragma-dialectic) that analyzes argument by characterizing argumentative discussion as critical and focusing on only those things that are responsible for moving opinions closer. Other aspects of discourse are ignored. This approach is more abstract and removed from the richness of the interactional sequences in which argument is embedded. Argument discourse can utilize the methods of conversation and discourse analysis to study argumentation. The goal of understanding argument discourse includes understanding “real” interactions that focus on the speaker’s actual sequence of turns on the floor. Psychologists, for example (Billig, 1987), use discourse-based approaches to investigate argumentation and the thinking that accompanies it. Leitão (2000) reports on how disputes emerge in collective structure and contributes to knowledge building. The process of opposition prompts arguers and communicators to produce better and more explicit arguments. There are four key issues pertinent to the analysis of argumentation that is discourse based and rooted in the sequences of everyday interaction. The first is the matter of the argument context. This could be a discussion over coffee, a business meeting, and either a structured or an unstructured discussion. The overall function of these situations is always a key variable including participants, public goals, private goals, and other relevant contextual material. The second key issue for analysis is the nature of the arguments and counterarguments. These provide the substance of the discussion and can be directed at individuals or their positions. Analysis of arguments and counterarguments involves constructing claims to truth and seeking the most compelling position. A third component involves the replies to counterarguments and responses to having one’s positions challenged. Participants can increase the emotionality of the context by taking challenges personally or use replies to sharpen ideas. How these ideas are integrated into a speaker’s position is a continuing site for analysis including the loss of certainty that accompanies integration of other ideas into one’s own. Finally, there is the
4
A R G U M E N T DI S C O U R S E
matter of how one’s knowledge is revised. This last issue challenges the notion of discussion that implies a zero-sum game between arguers in which the matter is resolved and one side wins or loses. Argument discourse includes subtler forms of compromise and attitude change that can manage a wide variety of everyday talk (Stein & Miller, 1993). Outcomes such as conciliation and compromise must be understood as successful discourse strategies that make it possible for people to deal with conflicting differences that are satisfactory solutions based on their ongoing development of knowledge. Compromise and conciliation are not simply useful interpersonal goals but effective techniques of coexistence that are helpful discourse devices enabling people to manage dilemmas.
Human reasoning Argument discourse represents the cultural and situational realities of human reasoning. This reasoning is often fallacious but in some instances defensible and genuinely characteristic of the participants. There is a tension between arguments that are reasonable and those that might be suspect but are effective. Everyday argument schemes displayed in discourse in conversational exchanges represent the kinds of arguments used in casual conversation. Even if they do not meet the conditions of sound reasoning or plausibility they are a kind of heuristic useful for moving a person from conditions of uncertainty to one of knowledge. Bex et al. (2003) describe argument schemes as a form of inference used in everyday conversational exchanges where one party seeks to have a conclusion accepted by another party. These represent informal patterns of deduction and induction. A key issue in argument discourse is evaluating human reasoning. In other words, what are the conditions in which a conclusion based on evidence is justified or not. Reed and Walton (2007) as well as others identify argument schemes and discuss how many of them are similar to Aristotelian topics. Everyday argument discourse is still subject to standards of quality and acceptability, albeit those standards often do not meet the rigor of formal argumentation. Hence, one example common in everyday discourse is the argument from authority or expert opinion. This is simply the notion that an individual holds special knowledge and his or her assertion that something is true, or some relationship will result, should be understood as plausible or true. The logic of this reasoning is accompanied by the human psychology of the reasoning that indicates the tendency to defer to experts, sometimes without question. Those communicators most concerned with testing the expert proposition might ask any of the following questions: Is the expert credible? Is the expert qualified in the particular field? Is the expert trustworthy or does he or she have ulterior motives? Is one expert opinion consistent with another? Suffice it to say that quality reasoning in decision-making requires asking critical questions and sometimes exploring deeper levels of analysis. In the book Democracy and Moral Conflict (2009) Talisse argues that decisions formed by groups and subject to argument discourse must be justifiable to all citizens. This is a key issue for argument discourse because the grounds for justification can be unclear and shifting unlike formal reasoning. Regardless of one’s stance toward particular issues or morality, there is an overriding concern with how one ought to
A R G U M E N T DI S C O U R S E
5
believe something and when a particular position should be justifiably endorsed. Those engaged in argumentative exchange must always grapple with issues in truth, beliefs, evidence, reasoning, and argument. Problem-solving and democracy are dialogical and must emerge from the interactional process. All discursive argument must confront and challenge those who hold beliefs for which there are no warrants. But the challenge is to confront reasons and issues and square them with evidence rather than turn to personal and psychological matters. Even in the case of deep disagreement argument discourse represents the possibility for epistemic change. Israelis and Palestinians, for example, have redefined their overlapping consensus on issues such as borders following intense argumentative exchanges (cf. Ellis, 2012). Argument discourse challenges traditional views of argumentation by denying that successful discussion results in clear resolution on the basis of accepted standards of reasoning. Instead, argument is seen as a communication process subject to the cultural, psychological, and sociological constraints on individuals. These include interpersonal goals and more complex efforts to argue, counterargue, and change initial positions. Imagining argument as embedded in the communication processes of participants and inextricably tied to social and cultural conditions is a particular feature of the tradition of language and social interaction. SEE ALSO: Agreement and Disagreement; Arbitration Discourse; Context; Conver-
sation Analysis, Overview; Deliberative Democracy Discourse; Dialogue; Discourse Analysis; Dugri; Expertise Discourse; Frame(ing); Jury Trial Discourse; Narrative; Political Discourse Analysis; Pragma-dialectics; Rhetorical Devices; Speech Codes Theory; Turn-Taking
References Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: Argument schemes and generalizations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125–165. doi: 10.1023/B:ARTI.0000046007.11806.9a Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ellis, D. G. (2012). Deliberative communication and ethnopolitical conflict. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational arguments: Pragmatic basis for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265. doi: 10.1080/00335638009383524 Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. doi: 10.1159/000022695 O’Keefe, D. J. (1977). Two concepts of argument. Journal of American Forensic Association, 13, 121–128. doi: 10.1515/9783110885651.79 Reed, C., & Walton, D. (2007). Argumentation schemes in dialogue. In Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground (pp. 1–11). Windsor, ON: University of Windsor Press. Stein, N., & Miller, C. (1993). The development of memory and reasoning skill in argumentative contacts: Evaluating, explaining, and generating evidence. In R. Glasser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology (pp. 285–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6
A R G U M E N T DI S C O U R S E
Talisse, R. B. (2009). Democracy and moral conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Willard, C. A. (1978). A reformulation of the concept of argument: The constructivist/interactionist foundations of the sociology of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14, 121–140.
Donald G. Ellis is professor of communication at the University of Hartford, USA. He is an ICA fellow, past editor of the journal Communication Theory, and Fulbright recipient. His research interests pertain to communication issues and ethnopolitical conflicts with particular emphasis on dialogue and deliberation. Professor Ellis is the author of numerous articles and books the most recent of which is Deliberative Communication and Ethnopolitical Conflict, and forthcoming is Fierce Entanglements: Dialogue and Deliberation for Ethnopolitically Divided Groups. He also blogs on peace and conflict politics at http://peaceandconflictpolitics.com
