ArgLab - MANIFESTO

1 de 3

http://arglab.squarespace.com/manifesto/

E v e n ts

HOME
MANIFESTO
EVENTS

Copyright 2012, Instituto de Filosofia da Linguagem,

FCSH, UNL. All rights reserved.

NEWS
PUBLICATIONS
PROJECTS
RESEARCH
GROUP
CONTACTS

Giovanni
Damele,
8
April
2014,
16:30
Dina
Mendoa,
6
March
2014,
11:00
-

Search
this
site
Login
Email
us

Argumentation
and
Rational
Decisions,
5
December
2013
ArgLab
Presents
Argupolis
in
Lisbon,

MANIFESTO

23-25
October
2013

ArgLab is a research unit within the larger research-oriented Institute for the Philosophy of

08/05/2014 16:34

ArgLab - MANIFESTO

2 de 3

http://arglab.squarespace.com/manifesto/

Language (IFL) at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities (Faculdade de Cincias Sociais

Ne ws

e Humanas) of the New University of Lisbon (Universidade Nova de Lisboa), Portugal. In the
research unit, international doctoral and postdoctoral researchers are led by senior researchers

from the Institute for the Philosophy of Language.

Argumentation
for

In our research, we systematically analyse and evaluate various forms of public argument in
order to shed light on the rational and strategic aspects of public argumentative practices and
their products. In our analysis and evaluation, we examine public argumentative practices from
the perspective of their internal and conversational structure, namely their linguistic, logical,
dialogical and rhetorical dimensions. Furthermore, we employ a contextualised perspective to
the study of argumentation, in which argumentation is viewed as a communicative activity that
always takes place in a certain more or less clearly delineated context be it a small talk over

judges
and
legal
professionals
Marcin

coffee, an online discussion, a parliamentary debate or a legal trial. Consequently, alongside

Lewinski

studying arguments as constellations of premises supporting a conclusion, we methodically

at

examine the conditions and procedures under which real-life argumentation is

Rutgers

characteristically performed.

University
-

In our research, we pursue three basic goals. First, we aim at acquiring better empirical insight
into the shape and quality of arguments in different spheres and fields of life, while paying
special attention to the public and legal sphere in which a great many fundamental societal and
political decisions are made. Second, by undertaking contextual analyses we provide
continuous feedback to the theory of argumentation. Ordinary contextual complications of
public argumentation, such as the phenomenon of many-to-many deliberation, of pursuing

Hans
V.
Hansen
at
the

many (often conflicting) goals by arguers, are still not properly theorised. To increase the

ArgLab

empirical adequacy and applicability of argumentation theory we thus attempt to give such

phenomena a consistent theoretical shape. Finally, and most crucially, all of our tasks converge

Argupolis

on the goal of improving public debate, in Portugal and elsewhere. With a strong theoretical

II

background, well-developed empirical tools and a clearly defined object of study, we aim to

narrow the gap between ideal models and actual practices of argumentation.

Argumentation

Three issues in argumentation theory are central to our own studies: interpretation of
argumentative discourse, evaluation of reasons offered in justification of positions, and the
analysis of the strategic part of argumentation. Interpretation, crucial for all studies of
language, is even more important for argumentation, as it guides not only our proper

in
Science
Education
-

understanding of arguments, but also paves the way for their precise evaluation. In our work,

PhD

we therefore pay particular attention to the processes of interpretation methodically described

positions

in linguistic pragmatics, discourse analysis, as well as theories of legal hermeneutics. In

at

regards to argument evaluation, conditions of correctness of acts of argumentation can be

ArgLab

defined in various theoretical terms: as formal rules of logical validity, informal rules of
argument schemes, pragmatic rules of speech act performance, or norms of discourse ethics.
We aim at embracing a comprehensive view in which each of these concepts has its
well-defined role. Our work thus combines the study of formal errors of reasoning (logical
fallacies) with mistakes in the application of argument schemes, violations of the rules of

I n st i tu t i o n s

critical dialectical procedures, and other infelicities of argumentation that are typically called
informal fallacies. Finally, by looking closely into various argumentative strategies we intend to
enrich our analysis of argumentation with rhetorical insights.
Our research is governed by some basic theoretical commitments. We view argumentation as a
communicative process in which various positions are discussed in interactive exchanges of
arguments and objections. Therefore, while internal reasoning and monological chains of
inferences (as studied by classical logic) are a necessary element of argumentation studies,
they are not all that is relevant to appraising argumentation. Approached from the perspective

08/05/2014 16:34

ArgLab - MANIFESTO

3 de 3

http://arglab.squarespace.com/manifesto/

of the pragmatics of ordinary language, argumentation arises only in the situation of (possible)
disagreement and thus can be defined as a communicative act. Moreover, such acts are
characteristically strategic in that they are aimed at convincing others that the position
advocated by the speaker is better justified than other contradictory or competing positions.
On such a view, argumentation is part of a complex fabric of communication where multiple,
intricately related goals that speakers pursue are all achieved by means of arguing, that is,
presenting reasons that are meant to support their position and objecting to reasons presented
by others. This strategic process of arguing and counter-arguing takes place in various
contexts of daily life from largely informal (a family discussion regarding where to have
dinner tonight) to highly formalised (a decision of the Supreme Court to abandon a given law
as unconstitutional). We find such pragmatic and strategic concerns not only relevant, but
necessary in a practically meaningful and theoretically comprehensive approach to
argumentation. Such theoretical commitments first emerged in the long tradition of
argumentation studies delineated by the logical, dialectical and rhetorical investigations.
Today, they are broadly shared in the major contributions to argumentation theory.
Our investigation of the various forms of public argument is conducted at four main levels,
bringing to light four distinct structures: the linguistic (pragmatic), the reasoning (or quasilogical), the dialogical and the rhetorical structure. The pragmatic level of analysis consists in
examining the type of implicit and explicit speech acts in a text, in order to show the structure
of commitments that the speaker wants to frame. Why is the speaker taking for granted some
concepts or propositions? Why and how is he or she suggesting a certain conclusion, without
expressing it? For what purpose is he or she making a certain promise or claim? At a reasoning
level the structure of what lies beneath the discourse acts is shown. By applying the tools of
logic to natural language and combining these two dimensions in a dialectical instrument, the
argumentation scheme and the force of implicit and explicit arguments can be brought to
surface. The arguments are then reconstructed and their strength evaluated, retrieving the
premises that the speaker decided not to express. At a dialogical level, the speech acts and the
arguments will be regarded as moves in a dialogue where the participants take turns to prove
or refute their implicit or explicit point. The structure of commitments and the rules of
reasoning become the instruments of a game where the interlocutors shift the burden of proof
and exploit the implicit rules of different institutional dialogues to lead the hearer to a specific
move. The rhetorical level can be described as the use of moves to influence the interlocutors
emotions and ethos and to affect their appraisal of the communicative situation and the
argument itself.
One of our crucial theoretical, indeed meta-theoretical, goals is to creatively combine insights
from well-articulated theories of argumentation such as the pragma-dialectical theory and
Waltons dialectical logical theory in search for what may be seen as the common agenda
underlying much of the theorising within argumentation studies. We do so by critically
investigating both theories with a view to exposing their productive commonalities rather than
intractable differences. Moreover, rather than simply comparing the two in abstractum we put
their theoretical and methodological apparatus to work in the analysis and evaluation of
concrete instances of argumentation. Such work is conducive to articulating the common core
of the two theories and thus, in a broader sense, to bridging the tradition of the European
pragma-dialectical approach and the North-American informal logic approach.

08/05/2014 16:34