Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory

The Structure of Argumentation

The Structure of Argumentation

Simple argumentation: consists of one single argument Complex argumentation: > multiple arg.: more than one alternative defense for the same standpoint > coordinative arg.: several arguments taken together constitute the defense of the standpoint > subordinative arg.: arguments supporting arguments Indicators provide evidence as to the exact nature of the arg. In the absence of such indicators, the analyst should opt for a maximally argumentative analysis and analyze the arg. as multiple By relying on a well-considered reconstruction of subordinative argumentation, it is sometimes possible (in a well-defined context), to arrive at a more specific formulation of elements that are left unexpressed

The Structure of Argumentation

1.1 Single Arguments In the simplest case, a defense consists of a single argument A fully explicit argument consists of two (and only two) premises one of these premises is usually left unexpressed so that the single argument appears to consist of only one premise A defense consisting in one argument only is very common The argument is often embedded in a larger discourse that is not primarily argumentative

(1) In concluding this review of your accomplishments here over the years, John, I would like to congratulate you on behalf of all of us on your 35 years with the company. We hope you will enjoy the rest of the day, together with your wife and children. You have earned a substantial gift, and we are proud to offer you this trip to Hawaii, because you have worked very hard for it. Bon voyage!

The Structure of Argumentation

Any defense should be broken down into components The defense in example (1) amounts to one single argument therefore one cannot break it further than that One could get a more complex picture, however, if one made explicit the unexpressed premise underlying this argumentation i.e., Hard work should be rewarded Uncovering the unexpressed premise is especially important if this premise is pursued later in the discussion.

The Structure of Argumentation

1.2 Multiple, Coordinative and Subordinative Argumentation
Multiple argumentation: alternative defenses of the same standpoint the defenses do not depend on each other to support the standpoint and are of equal weight each defense could theoretically stand alone and is presented as if it were sufficient to defend the standpoint (2) You cant possibly have met my mother in Marks & Spencers in Sheringham last week, because Sheringham doesnt have a Marks & Spencers, and as a matter of fact she died two years ago.

The Structure of Argumentation

Coordinative Argumentation: one single attempt at defending the standpoint that consists of a combination of arguments that must be taken together to constitute a conclusive defense the component parts of a coordinative argumentation are dependent on each other fot the defense of the standpoint the components may depend on each other in various ways: - they may be dependent because each argument by itself is too weak to conclusively support the standpoint: (3) The dinner was organized perfectly, for the room was exactly the right size for the number of guests, the arrangement of tables was well thought out, and the service was excellent. - the second argument rules out possible objections to the first argument, thereby reinforcing it: (4) We had no choice but to go out to eat, because there was nothing to eat at home and all the stores were closed

The Structure of Argumentation

Subordinative Argumentation: arguments are given for arguments the defense of the initial standpoint is made layer after layer
if the supporting argument of the initial standpoint cannot stand on its own, then it is supported by another argument, and if that argument needs support, then a further argument is added, and so on, until the defense seems conclusive. subordinative argumentation may consist of many layers (5) I cant help you paint your room next week, because I have no time next week because I have to study for an exam, because otherwise I will lose my scholarship, because Im not making good progress in my studies because Ive already been at it for more than five years. the speaker anticipates that certain parts of the argumentation will need further defense. The part to be defended then becomes a standpoint, which is defended by means of subargumentation. This subargumentation, in turn, can contain a subsubstandpoint, which needs to be defended by means of subsubargumentation and so on.

The Structure of Argumentation

1.3 The Complexity of the Argumentation Structure The complexity of argumentation depends on the number of single arguments it consists of and on the relations between these arguments. The number of arguments that need to be advanced depends, among other things, on the nature of the DO that the argumentation is intended to solve. e.g., resolving a multiple DO naturally requires more than one single argument: each proposition to be defended or refuted requires at least one single argument, so if there are several propositions being defended or refuted, then several single arguments need to be put forward:
(6) Although you may not agree, I thought Dickinson was a good president and Sandford was not, because Sanford was just a skilled bureaucrat, while Dickinson was really creative politician.

The Structure of Argumentation

Mixed DOs: more than one party must present a defense, each of which may consist of a single argument or of more complex argumentation: (7) Max: Sanford was a good president. Ellen: I entirely disagree. Max: He managed to push a huge budget cut through Congress and satisfy all objections, while at the same time the whole educational system got recognized. Ellen: All he did was to carry out other peoples ideas in an unimaginative way, without adding a single original idea of his own. He made a mess of secondary school education, not to mention the damage inflicted on university education it hardly deserves the name any more.

The Structure of Argumentation

The complexity of the structure of argumentation depends on what objections it addresses or anticipates: if a protagonist meets with or anticipates objections to certain parts of their argument, then they need to come up with argumentation to defend those parts with still more arguments, thereby creating subordinative argumentation:
(8) Jacobs: John could be let go because he already has 35 years of service and he wouldnt mind. Peter: What do you mean, he wouldnt mind? Jacobs: Well, for quite a while now, he has been talking about wanting to take it easy and this way he will get the chance to do that. Peter: But is it really true that he wants to take it easy? Jacobs: Yes, because he told me so himself.

The Structure of Argumentation

The criticism or anticipated criticism being countered by argumentation does not always involve the content of the premises (as in example (8)), but it may also relate to their justificatory power the antagonist may accept a given premise, but still doubt whether it lends sufficient support to the standpoint. To counter such criticism, the protagonist may supplement the original argumentation with other arguments that directly support the standpoint, thus creating coordinative argumentation:
(9) Will: This is a lousy vacation house; theres not even a corkscrew here. Ellen: Dont you think you are exaggerating a bit? Will: Yes, but there arent any wine glasses either, the chairs arent comfortable, and theres no fireplace.

The Structure of Argumentation

The antagonists responses or anticipated responses may lead the protagonist to put forward not only subordinative and coordinative argumentation, but also multiple argumentation: Because multiple argumentation consists of several alternative defenses of the same standpoint, each of which should be sufficient by itself, it might look like overkill one reason for giving additional arguments is if the protagonist anticipates that one or more of the attempts to defend the standpoint might be unsuccessful (e.g., the argumentation is directed towards a large group of people who may respond differently)

(10) When we designed the poster for train stations, we thought we might need more than just the main slogan: Missed the train? Dont swear! Lots of people might wonder why they shouldnt swear. In response to this question, we gave three arguments that we thought most people would see something in. Naturally, we dont expect each of these reasons in itself to be equally convincing to everyone. (text composed by the Society Against Profanity for a poster campaign) Acceptability is a matter of degree: people accept things to a greater or smaller degree. Multiple arguments are given because the additional arguments may raise the level of acceptance. Too many arguments, however, may lead to the opposite effect:

(11) I am not seeing her because I hardly even know her. Im not attracted to blonde women anyway. Besides, with all the budget cuts at work, Im way too busy these days for affairs like that. And dont forget that I still love you very much.

The Structure of Argumentation

1.4 Representing the Argumentation Structure Schematically
Complex argumentation can always be broken down into a number of single arguments (that is exactly what happens when the argumentation structure is analyzed) Single argumentation:
1 John has earned the gift

1.1 John has worked hard for it.

&

1.1 (Hard work should be rewarded)

The Structure of Argumentation

Multiple argumentation: each argument supports the same standpoint
1 You cant possibly have met my mother at Marks & Spencers in Sheringham last week

1.1 Sheringham doesnt have a Marks& Spencers

1.2 My mother died two years ago.

The Structure of Argumentation

Coordinative argumentation: the single arguments have to be taken together in order to defend the standpoint
1 We had to go out to eat.

1.1a There was nothing to eat at home.

1.1 b All the stores were closed.

The Structure of Argumentation

Subordinative Argumentation
1 I cant help you paint your room next week. 1.1 I have no time next week. 1.1.1 I have to study for an exam.

1.1.1.1 Otherwise Ill lose my scholarship. 1.1.1.1.1 Im not making good progress in my studies. 1.1.1.1.1.1 Ive already been at it for more than five years.

The Structure of Argumentation

Multpiplicity, coordination, and subordination can also occur in combination
1 I cant attend the big peace demonstration.

1.1 I have problems with my feet

1.2 Im going to be out of the country that day

1.3 a I dont entirely agree with the slogan they are using

1.3 b The slogan should be such that everybody agrees with it.

1.1.1 a I spent time in a concentrati on camp

1.1.1b I was beaten

2.1 My sister in London is getting married.

1.3 a.1 The slogan is biased.

1.3 a.1.1a They make it sound like world peace is being threatened from only one side

1.3 a.1.1 b World peace is threatened from many sides.

The Structure of Argumentation

Any reasonable evaluation of an argumentation starts from identifying its structure The protagonist may (very rarely) indicate how the argumentation is structured:
(12) Why is the capital letter larger than the lower-case letter? There are six reasons for this, none of them conclusive in itself. (the arg. is viewed as coordinated)

The protagonist almost never explicitly indicate how the argumentation is structured Certain words & expressions may serve as indicators of various types of structure: indicators of multiple arg.: needless to say, apart from, not to mention, another reason for this is, one argument for this is, in the first place, secondly, by the way, incidentally, quite apart from, aside from

(13) a. I dont see how you could have expected me to pick you up. In the first place, you have never even told me where you live. In the second place, we didnt make any arrangement. Not to mention the fact that I would have had to leave work at least an hour earlier. b. Theres no way to decide whether winning a gold medal is due to talent or training. Aside from the fact that talent is a very hard concept to define, some champions train a whole lot and others train very little. Quite another argument is that nobody has ever managed to say anything meaningful on this subject. Apart from all this, I would like to point out that the issue is wrongly put.

The Structure of Argumentation

indicators of coordinative argumentation: as well as the fact that, in addition to the fact that, on top of that, and dont forget that, especially because, even, plus, not only.but also, more importantly. (14) a. You should give me an allowance. In addition to the fact that I would like to buy lunch in the cafeteria, like all the other kids, its a pain to always ask you for money for school supplies. And dont forget that I have to save for entertainment and presents for my friends. b. Youd be better off studying English than French. Not only is English more closely related to Dutch than French is, and therefore easier to learn, but you also already know quite a bit. Plus the fact that you hear English a lot more on television, so you know what it should sound like.

The Structure of Argumentation

indicators of subordinative argumentation in subordinative argumentation one argument is supported by another one so that each supporting argument is really the beginning of a new round of argumentation: because, for that reason, therefore, after all, that is why, since, in view of etc. (=standard indicators of argumentation) (15) The Youth Center performs an important service for the community. It fills the vital need for a place where young people can stay, because some young people dont have a home to go to, because their parents dont want them around, since they refuse to adapt their behaviour to what their parents want, because they find it suffocating. certain combinations of general indicators only occur with subordinative argumentation: for because, because because, because in view of (16) a. Id better not stay any longer, for because Im so tired you must find me boring company. b. I think it is cool because because the color is so bright it is flashing. c. Unfortunately you cant stay overnight at our place. Because in view of the fact that my mother is staying with us, theres not enough room in the house.

The Structure of Argumentation

indicators which tend to be used only with coordinative and subordinative argumentation (they are too pompous to be used for concluding a single argument and they are not used with multiple arg.): I conclude that, this follows from, in conclusion, it follows from this that, taking everything into consideration, all things considered I believe I am justified in saying that, ergo. indicators which tend to be used with multiple and coordinative argumentation: and, also, and also, furthermore,moreover.

The Structure of Argumentation

1.6 A Maximally Argumentative Analysis

Coordinative & multiple arg. Are not always easy to distinguish from one another
Sometimes, the only way to tell whether an argumentation is coordinative or multiple is by going by the content of the arguments:

(17) a. I think I ought to buy this scarf, because its nice and warm and we can always exchange it. (coordinative content the fact that the scarf can be exchanged is not in itself sufficient reason for buying it; the two arguments need to be taken together) b. Of course you should buy that laptop. Its not all that expensive, and its OK to be a little extravagant on something you work with every day, dont you think? (multiple content the two arguments are taken as alternatives as the second argument takes into account the fact that the first argument might not be accepted) Sometimes it is not obvious whether each argument is intended as a separate defense of the standpoint or whether the arguments are intended to be conclusive only when taken together:

(18) The book was severely damaged during transport. There are scratches on the cover, and the first five pages are dog-eared.

The Structure of Argumentation

If one single argument from within a complex piece of argumentation is unsound, the consequences differ function of the argumentative structure i.e., whether it is coordinative or multiple: > multiple argumentation: since this type of argumentation contains more than one line of defense, if any of these lines of defense is undermined, the others still stand and may still provide conclusive defense of the standpoint > coordinative argumentation: there is only one line of defense therefore if any part of it is eliminated, the whole defense is weakened or even destroyed. Since it may affect the rest of the analysis, it is important to determine as carefully as possible whether the argumentation is coordinative or multiple. one should consider: the verbal presentation with possible indicators and any other clues + Communication Principle + the assumption that the speaker is making a serious attempt to resolve the difference of opinion. In truly ambiguous situations, opt for an analysis as multiple argumentation > this ensures that each part of the argumentation is judged on its own merits and that the strength of each single argument is duly examined = the strategy of maximally argumentative analysis

The Structure of Argumentation

Coordinative and multiple argumentation are quite commonly found side by side: (19) Im not very satisfied with this book, because the price is way too high. Secondly, its in French, whereas a lot more people could read it if it were in English. In the third place, I wasnt allowed to work on it. This argumentation has the following structure: 1. Im not very satisfied with this book. 1.1 The price is way too high. 1.2 a Its a French-language book. 1.2 b If it were in English, more people would be able to read it. 1.3 I wasnt allowed to work on it.

The Structure of Argumentation

1.7 Unexpressed Premises and Complex Argumentation For argumentation that does not have a well-defined context, it is preferable to assume that there is an unexpressed premise for every incomplete single argument. For well-defined contexts, it is possible to further specify the unexpressed premise. (it may even turn out that a whole chain of subordinative arguments was implied and can now be reconstructed):

e.g., (Situation: the popular singer Madonna appears in a TV add, surrounded by a group of attractive people and confides to the audience the following message): You should use Wonder skin lotion. I use it myself!
(reconstructing the unexpressed premise from the verbal presentation and the context): 1 You should use Wonder skin lotion. 1.1 Madonna uses Wonder skin lotion. (1.1) (Whatever Madonna does, you should do too.)= unexpressed standpoint (1.1.1) (Madonna belongs to the group of glamorous, attractive people)= unexpressed premise (1.11) (Everything the group of glamorous people does, you should imitate) =unexpressed premise

The Structure of Argumentation

The context for e.g., above was well-defined because the TV add in which the argumentation is set provides a clear background and because Madonna is a well-known personality the clues are situated outside the verbal presentation The verbal presentation may also provide clues a welldefined verbal context

When evaluating an argumentation both the verbal context and the context outside the verbal presentation should be checked for clues.