Résumés
Abstract
The paper discusses the role of systemic means of persuasion in argument evaluation. The core class of systemic means of persuasion is regress stoppers, whose fundamental function is to halt the infinite regress of justification by making claims more acceptable. The paper explores how systemic means of persuasion relate to the structure of arguments in the Toulmin model and function as persuasion cues that are typically processed heuristically. The study includes stylometric analysis and statistical data from three corpora, revealing these means as complementary to explicit argumentation. Observations and examples are drawn from an original corpus of competitive debates.
Keywords:
- argument evaluation,
- Awdiejew,
- computational linguistics,
- corpus of competitive debates,
- heuristic model of persuasion,
- regress stoppers,
- systemic means of persuasion,
- Toulmin,
- Toulmin model of argument
Résumé
L'article discute du rôle des moyens systémiques de persuasion dans l'évaluation des arguments. La classe centrale des moyens systémiques de persuasion est celle des freins à la régression, dont la fonction fondamentale est d’arrêter la régression infinie de justification en rendant les affirmations plus acceptables. L'article explore la façon dont les moyens systémiques de persuasion sont liés à la structure des arguments dans le modèle Toulmin et fonctionnent comme des indices de persuasion qui sont généralement traités de manière heuristique. L'étude comprend une analyse stylométrique et des données statistiques provenant de trois corpus, révélant que ces moyens sont complémentaires à l'argumentation explicite. Les observations et les exemples sont tirés d'un corpus original de débats compétitifs.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Awdiejew, Aleksy. 2004. Systemowe środki perswazji. In Manipulacja w języku. Manipulacja w tekście, eds. Piotr Krzyżanowski and Paweł Nowak. Lublin.
- Awdiejew, Aleksy. 2005. Strategie konwersacyjne. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Polonica. 7(2):127–50.
- Awdiejew, Aleksy. 2007. Gramatyka interakcji werbalnej. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
- Braet, Antoine C. 1999. The Enthymeme in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: From Argu-mentation Theory to Logic. Informal Logic. 19(2):101–17.
- Brożek, Anna, Marcin Będkowski, Alicja Chybińska, Stepan Ivanyk and Dominik Traczykowski. 2020. Anti-irrationalism. Philosophical Methods in the Lvov-Warsaw School. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper.
- Budzyńska-Daca, Agnieszka. 2014. Debata i negocjacje z perspektywy retorycznej krytyki gatunków. Forum Artis Rhetoricae. 3:36–51.
- Budzyńska, Katarzyna and Chris Reed. 2011. Whence inference? In Univer-sity of Dundee Technical Report. University of Dundee.
- Cowan, Joseph L. 1964. The uses of argument – an apology for logic. Mind. LXXIII(289):27–45.
- Cross, John D. and Ronald J. Matlon. 1978. An Analysis of Judging Philoso-phies in Academic Debate. Argumentation and Advocacy. 15(2):110–23.
- Dale, Hample. 1992. What is a good argument? In Readings in argumentation, eds. William L. Benoit, Dale Hample and Pamela J. Benoit. Berlin ; New York: Foris Publications.
- Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken. 1984. Cognitive Theories of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 17:267–359.
- Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser and Arnolda Francisca Snoeck Hen-kemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: a pragma-dialecti-cal study. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Ennis, Robert H. 2006. ‘Probably.’ In Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Freeman, James B. 1991. Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments. Berlin: Foris.
- Freeman, James B. 2011. Argument Structure: Representation and Theory. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
- Govier, Trudy. 1985. A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
- Grant, Adam M. 2021. Think again: the power of knowing what you don’t know. New York, New York: Viking.
- Harrell, Maralee. 2016. What is the argument? An introduction to philosoph-ical argument and analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
- Hill Jr., Sidney R. 1973. A Study of Participant Evaluations in Debate. The Journal of the American Forensic Association 9 (3):371–77.
- Hinton, Martin. 2021. Evaluating the Language of Argument, Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Hitchcock, David and Bart Verheij, eds. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Jacquette, Dale. 1996. Charity and the Reiteration Problem for Enthymemes. Informal Logic. 18(1): 1–15.
- Johnson, Steven L. 2009. Winning debates: a guide to debating in the style of the world universities debating championships. New York: International Debate Education Association.
- Johnson, Ralph H. and J. Anthony Blair. 1977. Logical self-defense. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Kock, Christian. 2006. Multiple warrants in practical reasoning. In Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Langer, Ellen J., Arthur Blank and Benzion Chanowitz. 1978. The mindless-ness of ostensibly thoughtful action: The role of “placebic” information in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36(6):635–42.
- Lee S. Y., Park J. 2019. A Study on Assessment Design for In-class Debates - With a Focus on Case Analyses of Judging at World Debating Championships, The Journal of Education. 2 (2):98–99.
- Levi, Don S. 1995. The Case of the Missing Premise. Informal Logic. 17(1):67–88.
- Macagno, Fabrizio and Douglas N. Walton. 2014. Emotive language in argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Mroczkowski, Robert, Piotr Rybak, Alina Wróblewska and Ireneusz Gawlik. 2021. HerBERT: Efficiently Pretrained Transformer-based Language Model for Polish. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Balto-Slavic Nat-ural Language Processing, eds. Bogdan Babych, Olga Kanishcheva, Preslav Nakov, Jakub Piskorski, Lidia Pivovarova et al., 1–10. Kiyv, Ukraine: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthol-ogy.org/2021.bsnlp-1.1.
- Paglieri, Fabio and John Woods. 2011. Enthymemes: From Reconstruction to Understanding. Argumentation. 25(2):127–39.
- Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persua-sion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
- Plumer, Gilbert. 2017. Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments. Argumentation. 31(3):469–84.
- Pollard, Tom and Diana B. Prentice, eds. 1981. Lincoln-Douglas Debate: The-ory and Practice. Lawrence: University of Kansas.
- Prager, John R. 2007. Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate. https://www. boone.k12.ky.us/userfiles/781/Classes/52280/intro-ld_2007.pdf?id=558370
- Reed, Chris and Glenn Rowe. 2006. Translating Toulmin diagrams: Theory neutrality in argument representation. In Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Rogowska, Kinga J. and Marcin Będkowski. 2023. Brakujące elementy argumentów w debacie konkursowej. Res Rhetorica 10 (2): 23–46.
- Searle, John Rogers. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of lan-guage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Searle, John Rogers. 1975. A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts. In Language, Mind and Knowledge, ed. Keith Gunderson. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
- Sermons of Father Piotr Pawlukiewicz. URL accessed 30 October 2023: http://www.kazaniaksiedzapiotra.pl/
- Shorthand reports from the sessions of the Sejm. URL accessed 30 October 2023: https://www.sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/stenogramy.xsp
- Statements at sessions of the Sejm, Meeting No. 39 on October 14, 2021. URL accessed 30 October 2023: https://sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/wypowiedz.xsp?posiedzenie=39&dzien=2&wyp=208&symbol=INFO_WYP
- Statements at sessions of the Sejm, Meeting No. 52 on April 7, 2022 URL accessed 30 October 2023: https://sejm.gov.pl/sejm9.nsf/wypowiedz.xsp?posiedzenie=52&dzien=2&wyp=237&view=1
- Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter and Robert J. Fogelin. 2010. Understanding argu-ments: an introduction to informal logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cen-gage Learning. 8th ed .
- Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 2018. Think again: how to reason and argue. UK: Pelican, an imprint of Penguin Books.
- Slob, Wouter H. 2006. The voice of the other: A dialogico-rhetorical under-standing of opponent and of Toulmin’s rebuttal. In Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. David Hitch-cock and Bart Verheij. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Szymanek, Krzysztof, Katarzyna Budzyńska, Janusz Czelakowski, Arkadiusz Drukier, Andrzej Grabowski et al. 2016. Co to jest dobry argument? Metoda dyskursu eksperckiego w badaniach nad argumentacją. Zagadnienia Naukoznawstwa. (3):313–30.
- Thomas, Stephen N. 1977. Practical reasoning in natural language. Eng-lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Thomas, Stephen N. 1991. Argument evaluation. Tampa, Fla.: Worthington Pub. Co.
- Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press. 2nd ed.
- Trapp, Robert, Joseph P. Zompetti, Jurate Motiejunaite and William Driscoll. 2005. Discovering the world through debate. A practical guide to educa-tional debate for debaters, coaches, and judges. IDEA Press Books.
- Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, commu-nication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Publications.
- Van Eemeren, Frans H. 2019. Argumentative Style: A Complex Notion. Ar-gumentation. 33(2):153–71.
- Voss, James F. 2006. Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured prob-lems. In Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Walton, Douglas. 2004. Classification of Fallacies of Relevance. Informal Logic. 24(1): 71–103.
- Walton, Douglas, Marcin Koszowy. 2014. Two Kinds of Arguments from Authority in the Ad Verecundiam Fallacy. In Proceedings of the 8th Confer-ence of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell and Francisca Snoeck Henke-mans, 1483–1492. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
- Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Younis, Ramy, Daniel De Oliveira Fernandes, Pascal Gygax, Marcin Koszowy and Steve Oswald. 2023. Rephrasing is not arguing, but it is still persuasive: An experimental approach to perlocutionary effects of re-phrase. Journal of Pragmatics. 210:12–23.