Keeping in touch
with Pragma-Dialectics
In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren
Edited by
Eveline Feteris
Bart Garssen
Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
University of Amsterdam
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Amsterdam / PhiladelphiaThe pragma-dialectical account
of argument schemes
David Hitchcock & Jean Wagemans
1. Introduction
In its simplest form, argumentation consists of a statement (the “argument”) put
forward by a speaker or writer (the “arguer”) in support of another statement (the
“standpoint”). The arguer may be assumed to make an attempt to overcome the
anticipated initial reluctance of the addressee to accept the standpoint by put-
ting forward an argument that he will accept. In this sense, one could say that the
arguer makes an attempt to transfer the acceptability of the argument ta that of
the standpoint.
Within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, the notion “argument
scheme” is defined as an abstract framework that expresses the way in which this
transfer of acceptability takes place. The notion plays a pivotal role in the pragma-
dialectical analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. In the analysis,
argument schemes are used to reconstruct the elements of the argumentation
that remained implicit. In the evaluation, the argument schemes and the critical
questions associated with these schemes are used to assess the appropriateness
and correctness of the arguer’s attempt to transfer the acceptability of the argu-
ment to that of the standpoint.
In this contribution, we scrutinize the pragma-dialectical account of argu-
ment schemes. We provide an overview of the pragma-dialectical account, identify
some problems with it, and propose a revision that addresses those problems.'
2. ‘The pragma-dialectical typology
In the introduction to the most recent iteration of the standard version of the
pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, van Eemeren and Grootendorst
(2004: 4) characterize an argument scheme as an abstract frame that expresses
the justificatory principle employed by the arguer “in order to promote a trans-
fer of acceptability from the explicit premise to the standpoint.” On the basis186 David Hitchcock & Jean Wagemans
of the kind of relationship between argument and standpoint that the arguer
tries to establish, they distinguish three main types of schemes: “symptomatic
argumentation’, “argumentation based on a comparison’, and “causal argumenta-
tion” In the introduction to the extended version of the theory that incorporates
the concept of strategic maneuvering, van Eemeren (2010: 12) repeats this typol-
ogy. Both introductions cite van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992: 94-102) as the
source where the typology is explained.
Below, we will first summarize the three main types of argument schemes that
make up the pragma-dialectical typology. We will reconstruct the examples given
in the source just mentioned by making use of the abstract schemes and associated
critical questions presented in Garssen (1997), van Eemeren, Grootendorst and
Snoeck Henkemans (2002), van Femeren and Snoeck Henkemans (2006), and van
Eemeren, Houtlosser and Snoeck Henkemans (2007). Next, we will briefly summa-
ize the pragma-dialectical account of “variants” and “sub-types” of the three main
types of argument schemes. Finally, we summarize the pragma-dialectical account
of the use of argument schemes in evaluating argumentation.
In our reconstruction, we use the linguistic concepts of a referent and a
predicate. When one applies these concepts to a sentence (or to the proposition
expressed by a sentence), one analyzes the sentence (or proposition) as attributing
some property to some object. The referent is the object to which the property is
attributed. The predicate is the part of the sentence that attributes the property. For
example, one can analyze the sentence “Caesar crossed the Rubicon” as attributing
the property of crossing the Rubicon to Caesar, in which case Caesar (the future
Roman emperor) is the referent and the verb phrase “crossed the Rubicon” is the
predicate. One can also analyze the same sentence as attributing to the Rubicon
(a river in Italy) the property of being crossed by Caesar, a property signified
by the predicate “was crossed by Caesar”. It is controversial whether all sentences
can be analyzed as attributing a property to a referent. According to the pragma-
dialectical typology of argument schemes, however, in argumentation of the three
main types the propositional content of both the argument and the standpoint can
be analyzed in this way.
2 ‘The main types
‘The first main type that is distinguished within the pragma-dialectical typology
of argument schemes is “symptomatic argumentation’. In this case, the argument
and the standpoint have a common referent (X), but different predicates. The
property attributed to the referent in the argument (Z) is put forward as being
a symptom of the property attributed to it in the standpoint (Y). Thus, in the
example “As Daniel is an American, he is sure to be concerned about the costs,”
Kepa Korta, Ernest Sosa, Xabier Arrazola (Eds.) - Cognition, Agency and Rationality - Proceedings of The Fifth International Colloquium On Cognitive Sci PDF