Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation

Argumentation 26 (1):115-126 (2012)

Abstract
If we consider the field of argumentation studies, we notice that many approaches consider argumentation in a pragmatic manner and define it as a verbal activity oriented towards the realization of a goal . The idea that subtends—in an explicit or implicit way—most of these approaches is that argumentation fundamentally aims to produce an effect upon an addressee, and that this effect consists in a change of attitude with respect to a viewpoint : argumentation theories inevitably confront the issue of persuasion. In this article, I defend, on the contrary, the hypothesis that it is not necessary to have recourse to the notion of persuasion, nor even to speak of an attempt to provoke a change of attitude in the addressee , in order to develop a general definition of argumentation. It seems to me that there are serious reasons to uncouple, insofar as a definition is concerned, argumentation and persuasion. I will look to identify these reasons, to formulate them and to evaluate their strength. In the same vein as recent works by Christian Plantin and Marc Angenot, I will try to contribute to the development of a non - persuasive conception of argumentation. Such a conception bases the definition of argumentation on the pragmatic aims of “justification” and “positioning”, as well as on the articulation of a discourse and a counter-discourse. I argue that such a conception might offer a better empirical adequacy than those that link, insofar as a definition, the argumentative activity and the persuasive aim
Keywords Argumentation  Counter-discourse  Discourse  Justification  Positioning  Persuasion
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-011-9240-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 38,928
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

A Practical Study of Argument.Trudy Govier - 1991 - Wadsworth Pub. Co..
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Cambridge University Press.
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Chaïm Perelman - 1969 - Notre Dame, [Ind.]University of Notre Dame Press.
The Logic of Deep Disagreements.Robert Fogelin - 1985 - Informal Logic 7 (1):3-11.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Argumentation as Rational Persuasion.J. Anthony Blair - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):71-81.
Persuasive Definition.Andrew Aberdein - 1997 - In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale & A. V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. Vale.
Persuasion or Alignment?Christian Plantin - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):83-97.
Persuasion.Katarzyna Budzyńska - 2006 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):343-362.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-10-04

Total views
30 ( #242,730 of 2,319,330 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #425,270 of 2,319,330 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature