Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we closely examine the various ways in which a multi-party argumentative discussion—argumentative polylogue—can be analyzed in a dialectical framework. Our chief concern is that while multi-party and multi-position discussions are characteristic of a large class of argumentative activities, dialectical approaches would analyze and evaluate them in terms of dyadic exchanges between two parties: pro and con. Using as an example an academic committee arguing about the researcher of the year as well as other cases from argumentation literature, we scrutinize the advantages and pitfalls of applying a dialectical framework to polylogue analysis and evaluation. We recognize two basic dialectical methods: interpreting polylogues as exchanges between two main camps and splitting polylogues into a multitude of dual encounters. On the basis of this critical inquiry, we lay out an argument expressing the need for an improved polylogical model and propose its basic elements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We only discuss here the dialectical approach to analyzing and evaluating argumentative polylogues. There are of course other perspectives investigating argumentative (rhetoric, logic) or some other aspect of rationality in collective decision-making (decision theory, social choice theory, game theory, etc.). We notice though, that while they have much to recommend, none of them focuses on the analysis and evaluation of argumentation qua interaction to the extent that dialectical approaches do.

  2. Exactly how they start the discussion is a secondary concern for our present purposes as ultimately whether they come in with established position or develop positions in the course of the conversation, they still must end up at a single choice based on their argumentative discussion of the options.

  3. Since we speak here of actions to be taken (whom to award a prize) rather than beliefs in the strict sense, we put the belief-related terms such as truth and falsity in inverted commas. Of course, the decision to select a given candidate is, ideally, grounded in a belief that this is indeed the best researcher.

  4. See Lewiński, forth., for a distinction between role-based dialectics, where arguers take up the roles of the proponents and opponents of given positions, and issue-based dialectics, where arguers examine the pros and cons of a given issue without making their case for a selected position on the issue.

  5. A di-logue in which two parties trade arguments and criticisms is a paradigmatic object for dialectical analysis. However, monological reasoning can be also reconstructed as an internal critical dialogue (e.g., Blair 1998; Jacquette 2007; Johnson 2000). The possibilities and perils of dialectically reconstructing polylogues will be discussed in the remainder of the paper.

  6. Walton’s framework of different dialectical dialogue types allows for a dynamic dialogical analysis of the entire procedure of activities such as deliberation; but such analyses take into account all communicative aspects of deliberation (proposal making, bargaining, preference aggregation, voting), rather than the strictly argumentative exchange of reasons and criticisms (Walton 1998, Ch. 6; McBurney et al. 2007; Rehg et al. 2005).

  7. See van Rees’s (1995) study for the transcripts of entire exchanges and her detailed analysis.

  8. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969/1958) use the term “composite audience”; Zarefsky (2008) “heterogeneous audience”; van Eemeren (2010, p. 110) distinguishes between “multiple” audience (“consisting of individuals or subgroups having different positions in the difference of opinion”) and “mixed” audience (“consisting of individuals or subgroups having different starting points”).

  9. In a pragma-dialectical analysis the first option where one proposition is asserted and doubted (α vs. α?), the so called “single non-mixed dispute”, is the most elementary dialectical form of disagreement into which all other types of disputes can be analytically broken (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004, p. 120); the second type (α vs. ¬α) is a “single mixed dispute” since the other arguer takes up a contradictory position on the same proposition, instead of merely expressing doubt against it. Further, there is a “multiple non-mixed dispute” in which a number of propositions is doubted (e.g., α ∧ β ∧ γ vs. (α ∧ β ∧ γ)?) and a “multiple mixed dispute” where a number of propositions is contradicted (e.g., α ∧ β ∧ γ vs. ¬(α ∧ β ∧ γ)). The last option is called a “qualitatively multiple dispute” (see van Eemeren et al. 2007, pp. 26–27) since two qualitatively exclusive (contrary) propositions (α vs. β) are discussed.

  10. Bonevac claims that “[s]omeone seeking to defend a position against a variety of opponents at once, for example, must meet a number of constraints that cannot be understood as conjunctions of constraints applied to each dispute taken individually” (Bonevac 2003, pp. 454–455, see also Lewiński 2012).

  11. Similarly to the differences between what is good in logical and dialectical approaches to argumentation, so thoroughly examined by Hamblin (1970).

  12. One reviewer suggested that polylogical factors in argumentation analysis are basically rhetorical concerns. But we understand this as a difference different than the one between dialectic and rhetoric. We focus here precisely on the resolution-relevant moves which, as we argue, are not always simply dyadic. Our inquiry, then, begins in the realm of the “reasonable” and dialectical—rather than “strategic” and rhetorical—aspect of strategic maneuvering in polylogical argumentation. Therefore, we disagree with a “defeatist” position in which all polylogical facets of multi-party discussions are demoted to the status of purely rhetorical complications surrounding a dyadic dialectical dispute.

  13. See Hamblin (1970, p. 216) for the distinction between safe and risky questions.

  14. Note that it is at the confrontation stage where the fallacy of a false dilemma can be defined in a polylogical sense: “In a context where one can discuss many propositions (poly-lemma), a di-lemma is false, because it focuses exclusively on two positions, thus preventing other positions (standpoints) from being considered.” (Lewiński 2013b, p. 14).

  15. “Even if the principle ‘No common logic, no communication’ held, it would not follow that there must be a one logic for each polylogue, only common ground for each pair of parties in a polylogue that manage to communicate.” (Sylvan 1985, p. 110).

  16. Cf. basic Popperian criteria for theory selection in a “game of science” (e.g. in Lakatos 1974), as well as their application to argumentation theory in: van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1988).

References

  • Aakhus, M. 2003. Neither naive nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation 17(3): 265–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aakhus, M. 2007. Communication as design. Communication Monographs 74(1): 112–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aakhus, M. 2013. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aakhus, M., and S. Jackson. 2005. Technology, interaction and design. In Handbook of language and social interaction, ed. K. Fitch, and R. Sanders, 411–433. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  • Blair, J.A. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation 12(2): 325–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair, J.A. 2012. Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as related to argument. Philosophy and Rhetoric 45(2): 148–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonevac, D. 2003. Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation 17(4): 451–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brashers, D.E., and R.A. Meyers. 1989. Tag-team argument and group decision-making: A preliminary investigation. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the Sixth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, ed. B.E. Gronbeck, 542–550. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruxelles, S., and C. Kerbrat-Orecchioni. 2004. Coalitions in polylogues. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 75–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canary, D.J., B.G. Brossmann, and D.R. Seibold. 1987. Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal 53(1): 18–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H. 1992. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H.H., and T.B. Carlson. 1982. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58(2): 332–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dascal, M. 2008. Dichotomies and types of debate. In Controversy and Confrontation: Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E.T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fogelin, R.J. 1985. The logic of deep disagreements. Informal Logic 7(1): 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. 1998. Disputation by design. Argumentation 12(2): 183–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66(3): 251–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., and M. Aakhus. 2002. What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(4): 177–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 2006. Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In Considering pragma-dialectics, ed. P. Houtlosser, and M.A. van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquette, D. 2007. Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21(2): 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. 2000. Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 1997. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in-interaction. Pragmatics 7(1): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. 2004. Introducing polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36(1): 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E.C.W. 1999. Profiles of Dialogue. In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema, 25–36. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krabbe, E.C.W. 2000. Meeting in the house of Callias: Rhetoric and dialectic. Argumentation 14(3): 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. 1974. The role of crucial experiments in science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4(4): 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S.C. 1988. Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order, ed. P. Drew, and A. Wootton, 161–227. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewiński, M. 2010. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47(2): 86–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewiński, M. 2012. Public deliberation as a polylogue: Challenges of argumentation analysis and evaluation. In Inside arguments: Logic and the study of argumentation, ed. H. J. Ribeiro, 223–245. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

  • Lewiński, M. 2013a. Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides, positions, and cases. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1): 151–177.

  • Lewiński, M. 2013b. Polylogical fallacies: Are there any? In Virtues of argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the ontario society for the study of argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013, ed. D. Mohammed, and M. Lewiński, 1–18. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

  • McBurney, P., D. Hitchcock, and S. Parsons. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, D. 2011. Strategic manoeuvring in simultaneous discussions. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1–11). CD-ROM. Windsor, ON: OSSA.

  • Perelman, Ch., and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958).

  • Prakken, H. 2009. Models of persuasion dialogue. In Argumentation in artificial intelligence, ed. I. Rahwan, and G.R. Simari, 281–300. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rehg, W., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. 2005. Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: Assessing deliberative legitimacy. AI & SOCIETY 19(3): 203–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., E.A. Schegloff, and G. Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, M.H., and C.M. Zeitz. 1995. Analyzing conversational reasoning. Informal Logic 17(1): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. 1992. Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: SicSat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan, R. 1985. Introducing polylogue theory. Philosophica 35(1): 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1988. Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2(2): 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and A.F.S. Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Rees, M.A. 1995. Analyzing and evaluating problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 9(2): 343–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rees, M.A. 2001. The diagnostic power of the stages of critical discussion in the analysis and evaluation of problem-solving discussions. Argumentation 15(4): 457–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rees, M.A. 2003. Within pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac. Argumentation 17(4): 461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1984. Logical dialogue-games and fallacies. Lanham, MD: University Press of America Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 1999. Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation 13(1): 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N., and F. Macagno. 2010. Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation 24(3): 283–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.N., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, J. W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. J. Schuetz, and R. Trapp, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

  • Zarefsky, D. 2008. Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. Argumentation 22(3): 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy of Language (IFL), Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Edifício I&D-4 andar, Avenida de Berna 26, 1069-061, Lisbon, Portugal

    Marcin Lewiński

  2. Laboratory for the Study of Applied Language Technology and Society (SALTS), School of Communication and Information, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ, 08901, USA

    Mark Aakhus

Authors
  1. Marcin Lewiński
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mark Aakhus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcin Lewiński.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lewiński, M., Aakhus, M. Argumentative Polylogues in a Dialectical Framework: A Methodological Inquiry. Argumentation 28, 161–185 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-013-9307-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation