Program

Keynote speakers

Frans van Eemeren

University of Amsterdam

A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective on Argumentative Style

In ‘A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective on Argumentative Style’ Frans van Eemeren explains that there is much more to argumentative style than just the well-known presentational (“linguistic”) dimension. Equally important dimensions of the argumentative styles utilized in resolving a difference of opinion are the topical dimension of the selection of the standpoints, starting points, arguments and concluding statements put forward in the discourse and the dimension of the adaptations to the presumed demand of the audience that is to be convinced. In argumentative discourse these three dimensions of argumentative style manifest themselves together in the argumentative moves that are made, the argumentative routes that are chosen and the strategic considerations that are brought to bear. It is explained that the pragma-dialectical theory provides the tools for identifying the argumentative style that is used. The expose is illustrated by discussing the distinctive properties of two general categories of argumentative styles: “detached” and “engaged” argumentative styles.

Manfred Kienpointner

University of Innsbruck

Early modern freedom discourse: Argumentative patterns in Arcangela Tarabotti's Tirannia paterna

Arcangela Tarabotti (1604-1652) is one of the most brilliant protagonists of protofeminist discourse in early modern Europe. Her treatise Tirannia paterna („Paternal Tyranny“; published posthumously in 1654 under the title La semplicità ingannata („Innocence Deceived“) provides a devastating criticism of the common practice of forcing young, „unmarriageable“ women to enter a convent. In my presentation, Tarabotti’s strategic maneuvering will be analysed in some detail, that is, her strategic choices concerning topical potential, audience demand and verbal presentation (cf. van Eemeren 2010: 93f.).

More specifically, I would like to analyse the argument schemes underlying Tarabotti’s criticism of forced monachization, such as Argument from Authority, Argument from Justice, Pragmatic Argument, Argument from Ends and Means etc. I will use Ancient and Modern Rhetoric and contemporary argumentation theory as the theoretical basis for this analysis (cf. Aristotle, Perelman-Olbrechts-Tyteca 1983, Kienpointner 1992, Walton et al. 2008).

Furthermore, I would like to reconstruct prototypical and stereotypical (that is, frequent) constellations of argument schemes in Tarabotti’s Tirannia paterna, which are called “Argumentative Patterns” by Frans van Eemeren in his recent work within the framework of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentative patterns are “a particular constellation of argumentative moves in which, in dealing with a particular kind of difference of opinion, in defence of a particular type of standpoint, a particular argument scheme or combination of argument schemes is used in a particular kind of argumentative structure” (van Eemeren 2017: 6; van Eemeren 2018: 149ff.).

Finally, I would like to attempt a preliminary evaluation of Tarabotti’s argumentation. This evaluation will be sympathetic, but I will also point out some weak points of Tarabotti’s argumentative discourse.