Argument Theories of Learning - Pragma-dialectics

Van Eemeren & Grootendorst (1999, 2004) criticise Toulmin for not taking into account the fact that an argument always has, or so they claim, two sides, that of a proponent and that of an opponent. They feel that Toulmin gives the perspective of the proponent of an argument, but ignores the contribution of the opponent. They further the work of Toulmin, as well as the speech act theory of Searle (1965) and Austin (1962), which concerns itself with ‘pragmatics’ or how utterances do things such as persuading people.  They do so, by making this kind of analysis more ‘dialectical’ by situating it in a conversation between two people. The ideal conversation, according to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst, proceeds in four stages:

1.            Confrontation - two people verbalize a difference of opinion,

2.            Opening - they agree on procedural and substantive starting points for resolving this difference of opinion,

3.            Argumentation - the debate is advanced and responded to, and

4.            Conclusion - the parties decide jointly whether and how their difference of opinion has been resolved.

(De Laat & Wegerif, 2007)

The simplest example is when one person expresses doubt about a statement. It is then the task of the other person in the dialogue, the “protagonist”, to justify the assertion to the satisfaction of that person, the “antagonist”, using the starting points agreed to at the opening stage. These four steps for the basis of a dialogue in an online discussion so that critical thinking is developed in a collaborative environment and learning is also takes place by reflecting on the claims and counterclaims within the discussion.

Following on from Grice’s (1975) work on the implicit rules of conversation in general, Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) propose ten rules for the conduct of argumentation as a type of conversation, a type which they call a “critical discussion”. These ten rules are as follows:

1.            Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

2.            A party that puts forward a standpoint is required to defend it if the other party asks him to do so.

3.            A party's attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

4.            A party may defend his standpoint only by furthering argumentation relating to that standpoint.

5.            A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he himself has left implicit.

6.            A party may not falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point nor deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

7.            A party may not regard a standpoint as conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means of an appropriate argumentation scheme that is correctly applied.

8.            In his argumentation, a party may only use arguments that are logically valid or capable of being validated by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.

9.            A failed defence of a standpoint must result in the party that put forward the standpoint retracting it, and a conclusive defence of the standpoint must result in the other party retracting his doubt about the standpoint.

10.         A party must not use formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous and he must interpret the other party's formulations as carefully and accurately as possible.

According to Van Eermeren a fallacy is a violation of one of the ten rules. Generically, such fallacies are moves which disrupt the process of logically resolving an expressed difference of opinion. Elements of this understanding can be seen in the way the tools are organised. I believe this can be seen within the openers of InterLoc (to be explained in a later blog) tool which will allow the participants to carry out the argument as suggested by Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992).