This article describes the long-term trends in marital status mortality differences in the Netherlands using a unique dataset relating to the period 1850–1970. Poisson regression analysis was applied to calculate relative mortality risks by marital status. For two periods, cause-of-death by marital status could be used. Clear differences in mortality by marital status were observed, with strongly increasing advantages for married men and women and a relative increase in the mortality of widowed compared with non-married people. Excess mortality among single (...) and formerly married men and women was visible in many cause-of-death categories, and this became more widespread during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Hypotheses are formulated that might explain why married men and women underwent a stronger decrease in mortality up until the end of World War II. (shrink)

Strong relationships have been hypothesized between the timing of marriage and the familial environment of the couple. Sociologists have identified various mechanisms via which the age at marriage in the parental generation might be related to the age at marriage of the children. In our paper we study this relationship for historical populations. We use a dataset consisting of several hundreds of thousands of marriages contracted in three of the 11 Dutch provinces between 1812 and 1922. We identified the generational (...) links between the brides, grooms, their parents, and grandparents. We studied (a) whether there is a relationship between ages at marriage of (grandfathers) fathers and sons, and ages at marriage of (grandmothers) mothers and daughters and (b) whether this relationship might be explained by social class. We find evidence for a clear effect of the family on age at marriage and substantial intergenerational transmission. The impact that the family of origin has on age at entry into marriage can partly be attributed to social class. We also observed positive effects of grandparents’ age at marriage on their offspring’s age at marriage. (shrink)

Using metaphor is a common strategy in politics and other argumentative settings to support a particular claim or to promote behavioral change (e.g., Musolff, 2004). By painting a picture of the is...

This paper offers a review of the argumentation-theoretical literature on metaphor in argumentative discourse. Two methodologies are combined: the pragma-dialectical theory is used to study the argumentative functions attributed to metaphor, and distinctions made in metaphor theory and the three-dimensional model of metaphor are used to compare the conceptions of metaphor taken as starting point in the reviewed literature. An overview is provided of all types of metaphors distinguished and their possible argumentative functions. The study reveals that not all possible (...) argumentative functions of metaphor have been taken into account, such as the role of conventional direct metaphors in standpoint and starting point. Novel direct metaphor as part of an analogy argument has received most attention, while indirect metaphor can constitute argumentative moves as well, such as the introduction of a standpoint, starting point or connection premise. The overview also shows that certain combinations of variables seem to be impossible of unlikely to occur. These results have a bearing on the analysis of metaphors in argumentative discourse and show the omission in current studies of metaphor. Being aware of these dimensions of metaphor ánd of its potential in argumentation would enrich argumentation studies and metaphor studies alike. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine the strategic function of four variants of pragmatic argumentation in the context of advisory health brochures. I argue that each variant functions as a strategic manoeuvre that deals with potential countermoves: with variant I and II writers can address anticipated doubt with respect to the standpoint and with variants III and IV they can strategically erase potential criticism of or possible alternatives to the proposed action. Keywords: health brochures, health communication, pragma-dialectical theory, pragmatic argumentation, strategic (...) maneuvering. (shrink)

In this paper, we propose a conceptual framework to understand and examine the argumentative content in multimodal protest. Protests arise in public controversies when people are dissatisfied with the way institutions deal with problems in society, and when conventional routes for addressing these issues are deemed problematic, especially for the powerless. Protest typically involves not only verbal expressions, but also the use of images, and bodily performances. While protest and other forms of activism are extensively explored from various perspectives, its (...) argumentative role is understudied. In this paper, we show that protest not only contributes to public controversies through intervention (e.g. social or cognitive pressure), but also through communication. The argumentative value lies in the (multimodal) communicative dimension of protest: we can understand protest as a communicative act that uses multimodal means to express disapproval about something and to advocate a remedy. We argue that protest contributes arguments to a public controversy by (1) expressing a core argument that addresses potential critical reactions to the claims intrinsic to any protest, and by (2) providing, what we call, proto-arguments, i.e. pieces of information that the audience can use to argue in support of the protest at future occasions. Using the case study of Extinction Rebellion’s highway blockades in the Hague in the Netherlands, we illustrate the pattern of the core argument of protest and three types of proto-arguments. By broadening the scope of argumentation, we invite argumentation scholars to take multimodal protest seriously. (shrink)

Everybody knows the kind of argumentation of the ‘Look out! Do you want to get run over?’-type. In these argumentations a standpoint, which is not always presented as one, is defended by an argumentation, which may pose as a question, often called ‘rhetorical’, or which otherwise does not show itself directly as an argumentation.

To those of you who know David Lodge’s satirical novel Small World it might be enlightening to confess that the invitation to deliver this keynote speech, flattering as it may be, instantly reminded me of Professor Arthur Kingfisher’s similar undertaking at the conference on ‘The Crisis of the Sign’ which in the book takes place in Chicago.

Since the conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation held in Amsterdam in July 2014 was the eighth ISSA conference, argumentation theorists from various kinds of backgrounds have been exchanging views about argumentation for almost thirty years. My keynote speech at the start of this conference seemed to me the right occasion for making some general comments on the way in which the field is progressing.

Speaking in Fulton Missouri at the same place and from the same oaken lectern used by Winston Churchill to make his historic “Iron Curtain” speech 46 years earlier, on May the 6th 1992 the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev delivered a warning that mankind faced “the most difficult transition in its history.” According to the British newspaper The Independent of May the 7th 1992, Gorbachev urged “a new system of global government anchored to the United Nations.” The Dutch newspaper De (...) Volkskrant reported on the same day that Gorbachev announced “a new era of worldwide democracy.”. (shrink)

Several authors have pointed at opportunities to develop the well-established Business Balanced Scorecard into a Scorecard that enables companies to integrate sustainability into their strategy. Recent case studies and research experiences show that social and environmental targets are more widely recognized as strategic drivers for management. However, experiments also show that the traditional Scorecard has its limits when it comes to e.g. stakeholder management and product chain management. The European Corporate Sustainability Framework (ECSF) program distinguishes several ambition levels for Corporate (...) Sustainability/Corporate Responsibility. The traditional Balanced Scorecard is suitable for companies that aim for Compliance-driven CS/CR or for Profit-driven CS/CR, where the financial bottom line is the ultimate indicator for success. More ambitious companies want to balance economic, social and ecological targets in a Community-driven CS/SR or Synergy-driven CS/CR. For ambitious companies, we propose a format of a Responsive Business Scorecard (RBS). The Responsive Scorecard enables companies to score at Profit, People and Planet, at the same time to integrate stakeholder demands into internal programs to improve performance. The RBS includes five Perspectives: Customers & Suppliers, Financiers & Owners, Society & Planet, Internal Process and Employees & Learning. We assessed the practical feasibility of a Responsive Scorecard in food and tourist industries. In the food industry, we analyzed whether existing business priorities of Italian companies can adequately fill a Responsive scorecard. Our conclusion is that traditional topics like finance, customers and employees are readily filled, but that sustainability topics like chain management (suppliers) and environmental performance (planet) need further elaboration. The tourist sector is dominated by Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. We investigated whether existing eco-labels for camping-sites and marinas can be developed into Responsive Scorecards. Our conclusion is that such a sector specific development of a Responsive Scorecard is possible. Further research has to show what is the value added of the new scorecard for companies in the tourist sector. (shrink)

The purpose of this presentation is to explain to you what the pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation involves. Due to the limited amount of time available for doing this, I have to restrict myself, of course, to some of the main points.

I started developing the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, together with Rob Grootendorst, at the University of Amsterdam in the 1970s. Our primary interest was to provide adequate tools for enhancing the quality of the way in which people justify their views and analyse and critically review the justifications of views they encounter in communicating with others. Because of the importance of such justifications for what people believe, associate themselves with and do, we considered argumentation of great intellectual, social and practical (...) significance. A systematic reflection on the tools enabling an adequate production, analysis and evaluation of argumentation seemed therefore crucial to us. (shrink)

Over the last few decades there have been several calls for a “big picture” of the history of science. There is a general need for a concise overview of the rise of modern science, with a clear structure allowing for a rough division into periods. This essay proposes such a scheme, one that is both elementary and comprehensive. It focuses on four machines, which can be seen to have mediated between science and society during successive periods of time: the clock, (...) the balance, the steam engine, and the computer. Following an extended developmental phase, each of these machines came to play a highly visible role in Western societies, both socially and economically. Each of these machines, moreover, was used as a powerful resource for the understanding of both inorganic and organic nature. More specifically, their metaphorical use helped to construe and refine some key concepts that would play a prominent role in such understanding. In each case the key concept would at some point be considered to represent the ultimate building block of reality. Finally, in a refined form, each of these machines would eventually make its entry in scientific research, thereby strengthening the ties between these machines and nature. (shrink)

Some conspicuous characteristics of argumentation as we all know this phenomenon from our shared everyday experiences are in my view vital to its theoretical treatment because they should have methodological consequences for the way in which argumentation research is conducted. To start with, argumentation is in the first place a communicative act complex, which is realized by making functional verbal (and sometimes non-verbal) communicative moves.

When Rob Grootendorst and I started studying argumentation in the early 1970s, we were in the first place interested in developing methods for enhancing the quality of argumentative practices: the ways in which people in argumentative reality justify their views in communication with others and respond to the justifications of views given by others.

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.

It is Friday the thirteenth today. This appears to be a doubly unlucky date to give a farewell lecture. The date Friday the thirteenth reminded me of a television show from 1999 in which the French reporter Philippe Vandel set to the streets with a camera and microphone in 1999 to ask people the following question: “Experts have determined that New Year’s Eve at the end of the millennium falls on Friday the thirteenth. Does that frighten you?”.

What is the relationship between logic and argumentation theory? The answer to this question depends, of course, to a large extent on the way in which logic and argumentation theory are conceived and defined. Opting for different concepts of logic and argumentation theory could result in the view that there is no relationship at all, that logic and argumentation theory are the same, that logic is part of argumentation theory, that argumentation theory is part of logic, or that some more (...) complex variant of either of these possibilities prevails. Acknowledging that other choices can be made, I start my attempt to answer the question about the relationship between logic and argumentation theory with a general indication of my understanding of logic and argumentation theory. (shrink)

The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. De Gruyter/Foris, Berlin/Dordrecht, 1984), (Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1992), (A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004) enables the analyst of argumentative discourse to make a theoretically motivated reconstruction of the discourse that results in an “analytic overview” of (...) all elements that are pertinent to a critical. (shrink)

Some conspicuous characteristics of argumentation as we all know this phenomenon from our shared everyday experiences are in my view vital to its theoretical treatment because they should have methodological consequences for the way in which argumentation research is conducted. To start with, argumentation is in the first place a communicative act complex, which is realized by making functional verbal communicative moves.

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.

The study of argumentation is prospering. After its brilliant start in Antiquity, highlighted in the classical works of Aristotle, after an alternation of ups and downs during the following millennia, in the post-Renaissance period its gradual decline set in. Revitalization took place only after Toulmin and Perelman published in the same year their landmark works The Uses of Argument and La nouvelle rhétorique. The model of argumentation presented by Toulmin and Perelman’s inventory of argumentation techniques inspired a great many scholars (...) in various ways to take up the study of argumentation in a serious manner. Nowadays there are well-established logical approaches to argumentation, but also social and socio-psychological, linguistic, juridical and other approaches. In most of these approaches traces can be found of the influence of the classical and neo-classical argumentation theories just mentioned. (shrink)

This paper is the second part of a two-part paper; the first part is entitled Delivering the goods in critical discussion (this volume). The general outlines of the framework we are developing for analysing argumentative discourse are explained in the first paper. As a brief illustration of the application of our method, we shall here reconstruct some important features of an argumentative discourse produced by William the Silent, our 16th century revolutionary.

In an earlier paper, entitled ‘Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof,’ we have explained our dialectical perspective on the division of the burden of proof in a critical discussion (van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Newport News/Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28, 2002).

In this chapter, we explain some of the basics of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation which was introduced in van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984). First, we make a comparison between dialectical analysis and rhetorical analysis, which is probably more familiar to most readers. Then, we sketch an ideal model of a critical discussion that can serve as a point of departure for dialectically analyzing argumentative discourse. In this model, we distinguish the various stages through which the resolution of a difference (...) of opinion should pass and mention the types of speech acts that can play a constructive role in each of these stages. Finally, we show what kind of pragma-dialectical transformations are to be carried out in a reconstruction of argumentative discourse which starts from this ideal model and leads to an analytic overview of the aspects of the discourse that are crucial for its evaluation. (shrink)

Argumentation is always a defense of a point of view: (a) Mother: “I don’t think five pounds pocket money is at all necessary; your sister always got two pounds a week.” Daughter: “That was years ago, and Betty, Monica, and all my other girlfriends get five or six pounds.” (b) History teacher: “Funny that you don’t want members of the National front working for the police, you were, after all, against the German Berufsverbote at the time?” English teacher: “Yes, but (...) at the time it wasn’t about people who are fundamentally undemocratic which is certainly the case with the National Front.” (c) Policeman: “Will you put these tables and chairs back where they belong immediately?” Publican: “Why can’t I put tables and chairs outside? Across the street they put everything outside and you don’t pick on them.” Policeman: “Well, Sir, they pay council rates for doing so, and you don’t!”. (shrink)

People who are engaged in argumentative discourse are characteristically not only out to conclude their differences of opinion their way but also oriented towards reaching this conclusion in a reasonable way: they may be regarded committed to norms that are instrumental in maintaining critical standards for being reasonable and to expect others to comply with the same standards. This means in practice that, while being out for the optimal rhetorical result, they may at the same time be presumed to hold (...) at every stage of the resolution process to the dialectical objective of the stage concerned. (shrink)

In argumentative discourse it is inevitable that now and then something goes wrong; even the commitment of fallacies is an unavoidable fact of life. In practice, however, it is not always immediately clear whether an argumentative move is fallacious or not. In some cases the fallaciousness of a move may not be of any real importance to a serious evaluation because the move was made without the speaker or writer fully realizing what he said—such as when the move is not (...) an intentional contribution to the discussion but just a slip of the tongue (or the mind) that can be corrected right away. (shrink)

Against the background of the standard pragma-dialectical theory, some fifteen years ago Van Eemeren en Houtlosser set about to extend the available analytic and evaluative tools by introducing the notion of ‘strategic maneuvering’ (van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Dialectic and rhetoric: the warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159, 2002). Strategic maneuvering refers to the arguers’ continual efforts to reconcile in their argumentative moves aiming for effectiveness with being reasonable. Strategic maneuvering takes place in all stages (...) of the argumentative process of resolving a difference of opinion on the merits. (shrink)

In the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation the term argumentation is used to refer to a process (“I am still in the middle of my argumentation”) as well as to its result (“Lets examine what her argumentation amounts to”). Characteristically, argumentation is then studied from a communicative perspective. This communication, which can be oral or written, will generally take place by verbal means, but non-verbal elements (such as gestures and images) may also play a part. In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is viewed as (...) aimed at resolving a difference of opinion by critically testing the acceptability of the standpoints at issue. Thus perceived, the study of argumentation does not only have a descriptive dimension that pertains to the way in which argumentation is conducted in communicative practice but also a normative dimension pertaining to the norms of reasonableness that are employed when argumentation is judged for its quality and possible flaws are detected. (shrink)

The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. De Gruyter/Foris, Berlin/Dordrecht, 1984), (Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1992), (A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004) enables the analyst of argumentative discourse to make a theoretically motivated reconstruction of the discourse that results in an “analytic overview” of (...) all elements that are pertinent to a critical. (shrink)

The subject we are dealing with in this paper—fallacies in argumentative exchanges—is a crucial topic in the study of argumentation. In our opinion, the way in which the fallacies are treated can even be seen as the “acid test” for any normative theory of argumentation.

In the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation fallacies are defined as violations of rules for critical discussion that further the resolution of differences of opinion on the merits. Viewed within this perspective, fallacies are wrong discussion moves. Such moves can occur in every stage of the resolution process and they can be made by both parties. Among the wrong moves that may occur in the argumentation stage are the fallacies of composition and division.

Advertisements can be surprising. About five years ago the following advertisement was during a series of months published in American and British magazines: “Carlsberg, probably the best beer in the world”. In the same period, the advertisers of the ‘fully rejuvenated’ Dutch morning paper Trouw [Trust] treated Dutch radio listeners to the following announcement—which has been repeated ad nauseam ever since: “Trouw, perhaps the best newspaper in the Netherlands”. It is not difficult to see that there is something awkward about (...) these two slogans. But what is it? Is it the firm and at the same time surprisingly cautious wording that makes one wonder whether Carlsberg is indeed the best beer in the world and whether Trouw is indeed the best newspaper in the Netherlands? Or is it the fact that a qualifier has been added to the appraisal that is wholly out of tune with the convention of advertising that products are recommended only in the boldest terms (“Durex, the best there is”)? Or is it yet something else? (shrink)

In order to be able to develop adequate tools for analysing argumentative discourse, a consistent and coherent research programme is needed which encompasses five components. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory an approach to the analysis of argumentation is proposed in which these five components are incorporated. In this article we shall explain this approach with regard to the reconstruction of argumentative discourse.

Pragma-dialectical analysis aims at a rational reconstruction of the ‘deep structure’ of argumentative discourse by revealing those aspects of the discourse that are relevant to the resolution of a difference of opinion. For this endeavour a methodical integration of normative and descriptive insights is required that enables the analyst to interpret the empirical data adequately in the light of the chosen perspective. In this paper, we shall discuss some of the theoretical starting-points of pragma-dialectical analysis as a systematic enterprise of (...) normative reconstruction. (shrink)

Inspired by Toulmin’s views on the ‘formal turn’ in post-Renaissance appreciation of reasonableness, we react in this paper against the strict separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches to argumentation. For a sound analysis of argumentative discourse we believe that these two approaches must be systematically combined. We shall illustrate our integrated method of analysis by a partial reconstruction of William of Orange’s famous Apologie (1581), which justifies his actions as leader of the Dutch Revolt against King Philip II, the Spanish (...) ruler of the Low Countries. Let us begin by offering some historical background information. (shrink)

Next to pragma-dialectics various other approaches to argumentation have developed during the past decades. First, the neo-classical views of Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca are discussed, which are still influential. Second, attention is paid to the formal dialectical approaches, developed by researchers with a background in logic and stimulated by the writings of Naess, Crawshay-Williams, Lorenzen and his Erlangen school, and Hamblin. Third, the various contributions to normatively oriented informal logic are briefly described. Fourth, the descriptive rhetorical and linguistic approaches (...) are given their due. In all cases it is indicated to which components of the research program of argumentation theory each of these approaches contributes and how it relates to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation that has been expounded in this volume. In conclusion some future prospects are highlighted, especially for further development of the pragma-dialectical approach. (shrink)

Although Renkema’s Introduction to Discourse Studies (2004: Chap. 12) provides a useful introduction to the study of argumentation, this brief account does not provide a full characterization of the field. Among the dominant approaches to argumentative discourse a general distinction can be made between dialectical approaches, which view argumentation from a critical perspective as aimed at establishing the tenability of the standpoints at issue, and rhetorical approaches valuing its practical effectiveness.

After an introduction and definition of the concept of argumentation the general objective of argumentation theory as a discipline is described and specified. Next, some crucial concepts of argumentation theory are discussed: standpoint, unexpressed premise, argument scheme, argumentation structure, and fallacy. Then the research program of argumentation theory is explained, consisting of a philosophical, a theoretical, an empirical, an analytical, and a practical component. The chapter is concluded by a brief overview of the various approaches that give shape to the (...) dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives on argumentation. (shrink)

In this chapter, we outline a theoretical framework for developing strategies for writing argumentative texts. In much of the literature on writing more is said about the preconditions for writing and the principles for pedagogy than about the ways in which writing problems can be solved. Authors who do pay attention to writing problems usually do so in an unmethodical way, and their recommendations are based on common sense rather than theoretical considerations. We attempt to offer an alternative that is (...) based on our pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The strategies we propose can be used by a writer in order to transform an analytic overview of the argumentation to be conveyed into a comprehensible and acceptable argumentative text. First is explained what one should imagine the various presentation transformations to be, then is shown, by way of concrete examples, exactly how the strategies involved are put into practice. Thus, it is made clear that the pragma-dialectical approach provides an opportunity to develop a methodical perspective which, so far, is lacking in the practical literature on writing. (shrink)

The study of argumentation is often considered to be part of the discipline called logic, more in particular of informal logic. In our contribution we would like to make clear that the study of argumentation can also be constructively viewed as being part of pragmatics, more in particular of normative pragmatics. In doing so we start from the theoretical perspective on argumentation that is commonly known as the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. For the sake of simplicity, in discussing the pragmatic (...) character of the pragma-dialectical approach we focus in this contribution in the first place on the speech act dimension of pragmatics. Our central question can therefore be specified as: how can it be made clear that the study of argumentation can be constructively viewed as being part of (normative) pragmatics by pointing out that the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation benefits in various respects significantly from taking a speech act perspective? (shrink)

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinion by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other’s argumentation? How do they criticize each other’s argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions this short essay provides a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.