Home » eJournal

Oswald (2007) Argumentation and Cognition

Argumentation and Cognition: Can Pragma-Dialectics Interplay with Pragma-Semantics?

Steve Oswald, University of Neuchâtel

Volume 1 Issue 1

Abstract

This paper addresses the possibility of a cognitive account of argumentation, by focusing on a tentative interplay between one of today's most influential theories of argumentation - van Eemeren and Grootendorst's Pragma-Dialectics - and Relevance Theory. With this purpose, I address the extent to which cognitive approaches to communication are able to incorporate pragma-dialectical insights.

Both paradigms share today an assumption of 'soft rationality' allowing a significant departure from formal logic conceptions of communication. These experience difficulties in accounting for successful argumentation relying on logically deficient arguments, i.e. fallacies. Acknowledging Pragma-Dialectics' contribution in this respect, I investigate the model's compatibility with a cognitive agenda based on assumptions entirely different from those of a normative agenda such as Pragma-Dialectics'. The difference between Relevance Theory's internal perspective and Pragma-Dialectics' external perspective on discourse gives evidence of a different approach to communication. In the end, this comes down to evaluating whether these divergences are, in argumentation studies, irreconcilable.

Download

Download full text of the article as PDF

(We recommend the free FoxIt PDF Viewer or Adobe Acrobat Reader 8 for better PDF experience.)

References

Allott, N. (2006) The role of misused concepts in manufacturing consent: A cognitive account. In L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds). Manipulation and Ideologies in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.147-168.

Austin, J. L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Bach, K. and Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Chilton, P. (2005) Manipulation, memes and metaphors. In L. de Saussure and P. Schulz (eds.) Manipulation and Ideologies in the 20th Century: Discourse, Language, Mind. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp.15-44.

Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New-York: Praeger.

Dascal, M. (1998) Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. In S. Cmejrkova, J. Hoffmannova, O. Mullerova, and J. Svetla (eds). Dialogue Analysis VI (= Proceedings of the 6th Conference, Prague 1996) 1. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer. pp.15-33.

Dascal, M. (2005a) Debating with myself and debating with others. In M. Dascal and P. Barrotta (eds). Controversies and Subjectivity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp.33-73.

Dascal, M. (2005b). The balance of reason. In D. Vanderveken (ed). Logic, Tought and Action. Dordrecht: Springer. pp.27-47. Available on:

http://www.tau.ac.il/humanities/philos/dascal/papers/balancefinalissima.pdf.

Eemeren, F. van and Grootendorst, R. (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris Publications.

Eemeren, F. van and Grootendorst, R. (1992) Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, F. van and Grootendorst, R. (1996) Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eemeren, F. van and Grootendorst, R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eemeren, F. van and Houtlosser, P. (2005) Strategic Manoeuvring. In M. Dascal et al. (eds). Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue ‘Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction’. Lugano: SComS.

Festinger, L. (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Horn, L. et al. (2004) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Levinson, S. (2000) Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Milgram, S. (2004 [1974]) Obedience to Authority. New-York: Harper Perennial Classics.

Noveck, I.A. and Sperber, D. (eds). (2004) Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Oswald, S. (forth.) Towards an Interface between Pragma-Dialectics and Relevance Theory. Pragmatics and Cognition.

Perry, J. (1986). Thoughts without Representation. Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society 60: 137-52.

Petty, R. E., and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Reboul A. and Moeschler J. (1998) Pragmatique du Discours. Paris: Armand-Colin.

Saussure, L. de (2005) Pragmatique procédurale et discours. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique 18: 101-125.

Searle, J. (1969) Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, E. (2006) Review: Pragmatics/History of Ling: Grootendorst, et al. Found at http://www.linguistlist.org/issues/16/16-2239.html.

Sperber, D. and Wilson, D (1995) Relevance. Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Sperber, D. (1997) Individualisme méthodologique et cognitivisme. In R. Bourdon, F. Chazel and A. Bouvier (eds.), Cognition et Sciences Sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. pp.123-136.

Van der Henst, J-B. and Sperber, D. (2004) Testing the cognitive and communicative principles of relevance. In: I. Noveck, I. and D. Sperber (eds), Experimental Pragmatics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp.141-171.

Wilson, D. (2000) Metarepresentation in Linguistic Communication. In D. Sperber (ed.), Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp.411-448.

Wilson, D. (2003) New Directions for Research in Pragmatics and Modularity. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 15: 105-127.

( categories: )