the amsterdam argumentation chronicle · 2010. 7. 21. · frans van eemeren . from left to right:...

THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE VOL. 6, NO. 1, June 2010

Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of Amsterdam

Dear friends, This new issue of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle is presented to all participants in the 7th ISSA Conference. As usual, we bring you the latest news and updates from our research and teaching programs. Also enclosed are some interviews with argumentation scholars who are connected with our department and reports by students and young researchers on their work in argumentation. If you are interested in receiving the electronic version (published twice a year) of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle regularly, please let us know ([email protected]). We hope that you will enjoy reading this issue. With kind regards, Frans van Eemeren

From left to right: Roosmaryn Pilgram, Bart Garssen, Constanza Ihnen Jory, José Plug, Corina Andone, Ingeborg van der Geest, Bert Meuffels,

Jean Wagemans, Lester van der Pluijm, Frans van Eemeren, Annemiek Mattern, Wilma Maljaars, Nanon Labrie, Lotte van Poppel, Jacky Visser,

Lotte Hemelrijk, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bilal Amjarso and Eveline Feteris.

mailto:[email protected]

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 6, no. 1 2

In this issue

Students about their study programme

By Jasmin Taraman ……………………………………………………………...……. 3

Visiting scholar

Interview with Lilian Bermejo Luque ………………………………………...…….. 4

Career story

By Bilal Amjarso ……………………………………………………………………… 7

Work in progress

By Peter Schulz & Bert Meuffels …………………………………………………….. 8

Visiting scholar

Interview with Ton van Haaften …………………………………………………….. 9

“This ISSA nice place”

Places to visit during the ISSA-conference ………………………………………….. 12

News …………………………………………………………………………………... 14

Book publications of the Amsterdam School ………………………………………... 15


A very well-fitting programme By Jasmin Taraman

Jasmin Taraman (from Germany) is a second year student

in the Research Master Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory

and Philosophy of the University of Amsterdam.

The time of my undergraduate studies in Rhetoric at the University of Tübingen has formed my academic perspective distinctly. One of the crucial questions for rhetoricians is how orators can achieve their goal most effectively. Relatively early, I encountered the realm of argumentation. In contrast to other means of convincing, argumentation seemed to be a rather concrete object of research and most systematically investigated in modern times. That’s what I liked about it – I understood the subject matter in contrast to other fairly vague domains in rhetoric.

Any person who becomes interested in argumentation theory will eventually come across pragma-dialectics. I first encountered the standard version of pragma-dialectics, which has a purely dialectical perspective. I quickly understood that this systematic and coherent theory is – from an analytical point of view – already useful and worthwhile considering,

though in a way still too limited for rhetorical purposes. It was all the more enlightening to later learn about extended pragma-dialectics in which a rhetorical dimension is systematically integrated into the originally dialectical framework.

STUDENTS ABOUT THEIR STUDY PROGRAMME

When I found out about the M.A. programmes at the UvA, I immediately knew I wanted to apply. Continuing with a PhD seemed (and still seems) like a real option, so that the research master was my first choice. The nice side effect of getting accepted was to be able to live in a city like Amsterdam.

Right now, I am in my last semester of the RAP program. In retrospect, I am sure I made the right decision. The research master enables students to deepen their knowledge in the field of argumentation, and more specifically in pragma-dialectics. The first year consists of a number of mandatory courses which are all coherent and building up on each other. I personally appreciated the clear programme structure which was not always present in my undergraduate studies. It was clear to see why students should take exactly these classes and read exactly these texts – everything was centred on one core: argumentation.

The second year was in a sense a real contrast to the first year. Instead of mandatory classes within a fixed curriculum, second year RAP students can spend their credit points on their own choices. The only requirement is that the work of the first semester should be the basis for the thesis that needs to be written in the second semester. All tutorials I took had a common theme: I investigated, with different focuses, distinct types of questions in different contexts. Unsurprisingly, my master thesis will also be concerned with argumentative questions. The second year was characterised by a close and excellent supervision by the academic staff.

In addition to the – for me – very well-fitting programme itself, we have regular research colloquia. The presentations are diverse and enable insight into the current research of, and critical comments from, different scholars. Discussions usually continued more informally over drinks in a nice café. Though I learned a lot in the courses, regular Friday afternoon discussions were often most insightful.

In addition, I have been working as one of the student assistants to Frans van Eemeren from the beginning of my second year. The job made it possible to experience the very friendly and welcoming atmosphere at the core of the department.

Though I am looking forward to holding my diploma in my hands, I am sad that my time as a student in this exceptional department is almost over.


Lilian Bermejo Luque

Lilian Bermejo Luque is a JAE-doc research fellow at the Philosophy Institute of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), in Madrid. Her areas of specialisation are argumentation theory, epistemology, theories of rationality and the relationship between practical and theoretical rationality. Currently, she is a guest researcher at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam.

What brings you to Amsterdam? There are historical and academic reasons. The historical reason is that Frans van Eemeren was my co-advisor when I was a PhD-student. I was very lucky because, in Spain, there was almost no one working on argumentation theory and I was almost entirely on my own. Frans’s help was very important, although I don’t work on pragma-dialectics – actually, I’m proposing my own theory, which is an alternative to informal logic, pragma-dialectics and the new rhetoric; it’s a new approach and Frans has always been very generous with helping me develop my theory. The academic reason is that this is the best department to work on argumentation theory. You have a wonderful library and you have it all. Can you tell us something about the approach

to argumentation that you are developing?

I call it a linguistic approach to argumentation theory. I suppose that there are several linguistic models, but my approach is linguistic in the sense that I characterise argumentation as a second order speech act complex. This is useful to integrate the logical, dialectical and rhetorical dimensions of argumentation, because they broadly correspond to the locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary aspects of speech act of arguing. My approach enables this integration both on the level of its analysis and its evaluation. In my view, we also have to take into account rhetorical conditions for evaluating argumentation, as well as, logical and dialectical conditions. These rhetorical conditions are not only a matter of interpreting what’s going on, but also of determining whether what you’re doing is right or wrong. The speech act of arguing is an attempt at showing the target claim to be correct and making salient to others that what you’re saying is correct. This is, in my account, the rhetorical aspect of argumentation.

VISITING SCHOLAR

What kind of research are you working on at

the moment? I used to work on the epistemological aspects of argumentation theory; I was concerned with justification, with philosophy of logic. Now, I joined a group that is more concerned with moral ethics. I’m working on analogies in bioethics. At ISSA, I’m going to present something theoretical. It’s related to a problem in moral philosophy that has to do with the fact that moral reasoning can be used to motivate and, at the same time, to justify moral judgments. This is a traditional problem in moral ethics, which I’m going to approach from an argumentative perspective. What kind of moral judgments are you

investigating in your research on bioethics? In general, when we speak of moral judgments, we speak of any morally evaluative judgment, of saying that something is good or bad to motivate an action. There’s a problem in explaining how a judgment is, at the same time, motivating if it doesn’t involve an emotion and, on the other hand, how something that involves an emotion can be justified. How can it be correct or incorrect?

In my research, I focus on bio-banking. Bio-banks are banks where you can store organs or stem cells from umbilical cords. In the US, they are run privately. People can decide to put, for example, their children’s umbilical cords in such a bank in case their children get a disease in


the future; researchers can investigate the stem cells in order to create medication for them. There are a lot of ethical problems involved in this practice, because, in principle, when bio-banks are run privately, they are only available to people who have some resources. It’s not that expensive, but there is, for example, the issue of what to do with the results of the research: can they only be used for the patient who paid for it or also for others? What to do if the costumer doesn’t want to pay for the storage anymore? There are many issues involved. This is a more interesting issue in the US than in Europe, because the government is not leading these projects in the US, contrary to what happens to bio-banks in European countries. How do you use argumentation theory in this

research? In bioethics, I’ve been working on the slippery slope fallacy. Well, not fallacy, but slippery slope argumentation, because I’ve tried to defend that there are cases in which you can use slippery slope arguments legitimately and cases in which it is not legitimate to use such arguments. For this, I used, for example, the Grafeneck Declaration that was drafted in Germany to keep medical developments under control to prevent programmes like the T4 programme of the Nazi-government from happening again. The Declaration concerns the rights of the patients and the sanctity of life.

The motivation for making this Declaration about the boundaries of medical research and techniques stems from the idea that if you don’t respect life as something sacred, then something like what happened in the Nazi-programmes might happen again. The Nazi-programmes were created based on the eugenic idea that people with disabilities or with psychiatric problems should disappear. In essence, they were supposed to be very rational, but the development was terrible. So, the idea is to set boundaries for such practices. In essence, the argumentation is that if you pass these boundaries, you go into a slippery slope

The slippery slope has, on the other hand, been used fallaciously. There is, for example, the argument that if you give women the right to have an abortion within the first 12 weeks, then there is no reason not to give them the right to abort later on, or even to kill newborn babies. Or if you give people the right to die, then things get out of hand. The Dutch legislation is very progressive in this sense, which is something that we envy in Spain. There is a lot of slippery slope argumentation

going on there: “if you do that, all grandmothers will be unplugged”.

In bio-banking, analogy argumentation plays an important role: because bio-banking is a new phenomenon, related to a new technology, you need to make analogies in order to try to understand its specificities. Bio-banking is so new that you can’t approach it by taking something that has already been accepted, like organ transplantation or blood storage, as a model. You need different analogies. I can imagine that these analogy arguments

can be used by both sides, by the companies

and by politicians who oppose it. On whom are

you focusing?

What I’m doing now is analysing the variety of analogies that are viewed in these realms, mostly by bioethical theories, and then evaluating whether they are sound or not in certain contexts. There is also a theoretical issue involved in this. Traditionally, there is a distinction, made by Trudy Govier, between inductive analogies and a priori analogies. She isn’t willing to say that they are deductive analogies, because she says that the principle that’s involved in order to say that two phenomena should be treated in the same way isn’t included in the argument. It’s typical for using argumentation by analogy that you don’t mention the principle, but you just relate two things to each other, knowing that they have something in common. Govier doesn’t want to say that they are deductive, but we want to say that they have some sort of compulsoriness in the conclusion. A colourful example of an argument for which you might want to do that is one by Judith Thompson: imagine that you wake up and you are physically connected to a brilliant violinist. You are told you have to stay connected to him because, otherwise, he will die. However, they also say that you are allowed to disconnect yourself from him. Thompson says it’s the same case if you are raped and you are pregnant as a consequence: we say you have a right to disconnect yourself from the violinist; consequently, you have the right to have an abortion in the case of rape. So, the conclusion of these arguments by analogy is supposed to be categorical, not probabilistic or hypothetical. The arguments have the appearance of a deductive argument, but the principle hasn’t been invoked. What is your view of the status of research in

the field of argumentation in Spain?


I think that, little by little, the study of argumentation is becoming more important in Spain. There are people working in philosophy of law, people in Alicante, for example, who work on legal argumentation. Some work with the Toulminian model. But, in my view, it isn’t enough related with argumentation theory. I think it’s a problem that argumentation theory hasn’t got an appropriate place in the philosophy departments. In general, we don’t have communication studies in Spain, so there is no other place where argumentation theory could fit in.

I’m always interested in trying to make philosophers to at least consider argumentation theory for many questions. I think of justification as the result of good argumentation, the result of an activity. Philosophers think of justification as if it were a property of claims or beliefs, etcetera, whereas, for me, it’s the result of an activity. It’s always strange that they don’t focus on argumentation when they should. Currently, there is an important branch of analytical philosophy, Brandon’s inferential reasoning. In my view, this is so near to Toulmin’s account of substantial inference, but philosophers just don’t seem to know Toulmin. I’m always trying to get them to be more concerned with argumentation theory. This is especially important in Spain, because argumentation theory is only in its beginning in philosophy departments there. What surprised you most during your stay in

Amsterdam, for example, compared to your

working environment in Spain?

I love Amsterdam, especially when the weather is nice, it makes such a difference! Apart from the city, for me it’s very nice to be at the department, because of what you are doing here. You are applying theory and this is what philosophers seldom do. It’s nice to formulate new theories, but the important thing is whether they work or not. I look with a lot of envy at all the empirical work that you do, like analyzing cases. This is something you can’t find in Spain. What are your future plans? My plan is to develop the philosophical aspect of my theory and also to apply it to different questions in philosophy, for example, on moral and ethical issues. I’d like to keep on working on ethics in general. I think that argumentation and debate studies are very necessary in Spanish society. Argumentation and debate is

necessary wherever, but the study in this field needs to be promoted in Spain, because we don’t have this tradition. This is something I envy a lot when looking at universities in the US. They are so involved in communication and debate. So, you would like to stay in Spain? Yes, I would like to. You always have to travel around, but my plan is to work in Spain because there is so much to do in argumentation. Our final question, not research-related at all,

but something we will ask to all interviewees

from now on: If you could choose to be anyone

in the world, dead or alive, who would you

like to be for one day? What a difficult question! Hmmm, I think I would like to be someone artistic, someone who would appreciate things not so much from a theoretical, but more from an artistic perspective. What kind of artist do you have in mind? I was thinking of a novelist. Someone who has an artistic view of things, because I sometimes tend to be too analytical and it should be in balance. I would like to experience a novelist’s way of thinking.

Lilian’s choices

Dean Professor

News online Newspaper

Cat Dog

Logic Rhetoric

New York Rome

Poetry Prose

Learning Teaching

Erwtensoep (pea

soup)

Poffertjes (tiny

pancakes)

Qualitative research Quantitative research

A bird in the hand is

worth two in the

bush.

Nothing ventured,

nothing gained.


Becoming a PhD By Bilal Amjarso

Bilal Amjarso (from Morocco) graduated in 2004 from the Master Discourse and Argumentation Studies Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam. When I graduated in Discourse and Argumentation Studies (DASA) in March 2004, I had one thing in mind and one thing only: to find a job, preferably one involving working with texts. Having written my Master thesis on strategic manoeuvring in corporate advertising, I thought that finding a position in the corporate communication sector could not but be the right move. I embarked on a job hunt, knowing that there were few people out there who had a MA in discourse and argumentation. I convinced myself that there was a niche in the market for people like me and that therefore there was no need to worry – a job was imminent.

However, the job hunt turned out to be much more difficult than I had expected. A few months after my graduation I was still unemployed. I grew tired and disillusioned, and I realised that it was time for some questions. Why couldn’t I find a suitable job? Was it the way I ‘was selling myself’ to potential employers or was it just the recession that had just beset the Dutch economy? Whatever the

reason, one thing was clear: I did not want to go on sending out application letters, certainly not on a full time basis, while I knew I could just go back to school and learn more. After all, I had enjoyed writing and discussing my MA thesis and had, in fact, just started appreciating the richness of argumentation theory when I finished my MA thesis. So, in September 2004, I decided to enrol in the new Research Master in Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory and Philosophy (RAP).

CAREER STORY

With an MA in DASA already in hand, I thought RAP would be an easy study. However, things soon started to tighten up. I had to study logic, which reminded me of my childhood nightmare – mathematics – had to read and write a lot for my tutorials and had some serious and motivated classmates to compete with. All in all, it was worthwhile taking things seriously. In addition, Frans van Eemeren had sent me an e-mail asking me if I was interested in applying for NWO’s ‘Mozaïek’ grant to pursue a PhD after completing the research Master. (For those readers who do not know what the ‘Mozaïek’ grant is, it is a PhD grant programme intended for Dutch graduates with an immigrant background.) Seeing that I met all NWO’s conditions, I immediately wrote to Frans van Eemeren telling him that I was more than willing to apply for this scholarship, a response he kindly reciprocated with a willingness to support me and to guide me through and beyond the application process. In the end, I was among the lucky ones: I was awarded the ‘Mozaïek’ scholarship. On August 30th 2005, I graduated from RAP. Two days later, I started as a PhD in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric.

The topic I chose to write my PhD dissertation about concerned an argumentative phenomenon that I had observed in the advertisements that I analysed in my DASA thesis (and which I touched upon in my RAP thesis), namely the practice of mentioning and refuting anticipated counterarguments. I was amazed to see that a company, for instance, in its attempt to promote its products and image would mention something in its advertisement that, at least at first glance, would seem detrimental to its endeavour, like for example admitting that its product had some less attractive features – hence an argument for not purchasing the product – but that these features were not that important. Armed with the theory of strategic manoeuvring, I set out to explore the strategic advantages that an arguer might gain from taking the trouble of mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument. The empirical question of whether, in the context of a monologue, mentioning and then refuting anticipated counterarguments is more effective than simply


mentioning supporting arguments has come to constitute the focal point of my research project. Answering this question required conducting experimental research.

Being a PhD student has been a privilege. I have had all the resources I needed to research and to learn. Think of having unlimited access to an endless body of literature, and, through colloquia and conferences, to an international community of scholars; think of being surrounded by a group of people who are among the best in their field and who are always ready to help, to discuss and to guide. The PhD journey, like the journey of life in some respects, has its ‘ups and downs’, though not necessarily in emotional terms. It’s a process of ups when you come to think of how delightful it sometimes can be to come up with new ideas that you can call your own. It’s a process of downs when you come to think of how difficult it sometimes can be to have to give up those very ideas because they could not stand the test of criticism. Indeed, during the period of time that I have been a PhD, I have discovered new ideas, flirted with them for sometime, made friends with them, but have had to let go of them when better ones came along. I am about to complete my PhD, and this process has not stopped yet. Sometimes, I wonder if the new friends I have made recently will make it to the final text.

Boundaries of argumentative strength

By Peter Schulz & Bert Meuffels

Peter Schulz (l) is a professor of Semiotics and Health Communication and the Director of the Institute of Communication and Health at the Università della Svizzera Italiana, Switzerland. His research focuses on the field of doctor-patient communication. Bert Meuffels (r) is an associate professor at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. His research focuses on the empirical analysis of argumentative discourse. In 2007, Peter and Bert together set up a research programme that encompasses several studies on the effectiveness of arguments in health communication.

This research programme, “Boundaries of argumentative strength”, is concerned with the effectiveness of arguments in realistic, everyday contexts. We chose health issues for this programme because effect of arguments in this field may be existential for patients and is of utmost importance for both the work of health care providers and the policies that create or change the health system, including both the prevention and the treatment of diseases.

As a first area to be studied, we selected breast cancer screening. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in Western industrialised countries: one in every ten women will develop breast cancer during her lifetime (in the Netherlands: one in every eight women!). The mortality of this cancer is high. In Europe, 2004 estimates indicated 371 000 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed and 129 900 breast-cancer-related deaths. As mortality rates rose since the 1950s, breast cancer screening was increasingly recommended, and screening programmes were introduced. Breast cancer screening possesses not only advantages for early detection and treatment, but also potential disadvantages such as unnecessary anxiety and morbidity related to the diagnostic work up, false positive and false negative screening examinations, over-diagnosis, economic costs and the exposure to radiation. Although a decrease in morbidity since about 1990 is ascribed to screening recommendations, it is recommended only for women in a particular age range, with details differing between countries (in the Netherlands: between the age of 50 and 75). Women’s knowledge of the details of breast cancer screening regulations and attitudes to screening are therefore an important matter. The study focuses on this knowledge and the effectiveness of arguments aimed at persuading women to follow recommendations.

WORK IN PROGRESS

In the countries where this study was carried out (i.e. in Switzerland and in Holland), the situation is quite different in respect to screening programmes – and that is precisely the reason for comparing these two countries. Switzerland is a country with one of the highest mortality rates from breast cancer worldwide.


Current Swiss guidelines on mammography screening recommend a mammogram every 2 years for women 50 to 70 years old and no routine screening below age 50 and above age 70. Cost for mammography is covered by health insurance when a physician prescribes it. Screening programmes are in operation only in two French-speaking cantons. Between 1989 and 1997, Holland gradually implemented a nationwide mammography-screening programme for women aged 50–75 years. By 1997, women of the target age group were receiving invitations for screening every other year, and results of early outcome assessments indicate that the programme is having a positive effect. The costs for screening are covered by the government; participation is voluntary. Each year approximately 1 million women are invited; about 80 percent accept the invitation. Despite the extant empirical literature on breast cancer, few data are available on the level of women’s knowledge of screening guidelines, on the factors influencing that knowledge and on the possible influence of this knowledge on behavior. The aims of this study are therefore (1) to compare the knowledge of mammography screening recommendations of women in Lugano and Amsterdam; (2) to predict differences in knowledge of screening recommendations on the basis of a small set of variables like level of concern, media exposure, breast self-examination, (3) to explore the relationship between knowledge of these guidelines and the intention to go or not to go for a mammogram, and (4) to test different aspects of arguments to persuade women to follow recommendations.

In order to further these and other aims, we studied several small samples of women above 15 years in Lugano and Amsterdam. Data collection was done by means of a short write-in questionnaires handed over and collected personally. Trained female research assistants approached potential participants in front of several supermarkets, in Amsterdam also during travels by train. The questionnaires covered the knowledge of screening recommendations, information sources, awareness of and concerns about of breast cancer, age, educational level, previous mammograms, intention to undergo a mammogram in the near future, former experiences with breast cancer among relatives, friends or colleagues, and frequency of breast self-examination. Experiments were included to test the effectiveness of statistical vs. anecdotal evidence and different ways of framing messages to persuade older women (above 50) to have a mammography performed, and

younger women (below 50) that a mammography is not yet appropriate for them. To be able to generalise the independent variable in an unequivocal manner and to ensure the external validity, pragma-dialectics was used to describe the argumentative structure of the (levels of the) independent variable.

With regard to general knowledge, results indicate that no significant differences between Lugano and Amsterdam were found, but Amsterdam women show better specific knowledge of the age groups for whom screening is recommended. Lugano women are more concerned about breast cancer, use more information sources, have a higher intention to go for a mammography, practice more breast self-investigation, have had more mammograms in the past, whereas the Amsterdam women claim to have more experience with breast cancer among their families and friends. These differences can be traced back to cultural forces, social structure and the different regulations in the two countries.

With regard to the effectiveness of arguments, it emerged that anecdotal evidence did not make a more or less persuasive argument than statistical evidence, and loss framing did not make messages more or less persuasive than gain framing. Type of evidence and type of framing just did not matter. The attempts to persuade women to take part in the screening programme above 50 years old simply turned out to be superfluous as almost everyone was convinced of that anyway. But the attempts to discourage women to take a mammography below the age of 50 appeared to be futile and were quite unsuccessful. To prevent ad hoc coding, the responses of the female participants in the post-experimental (oral) interviews were categorised and interpreted in terms of the pragma-dialectical argumentation schemes.

The consistent failure of all our attempts to persuade women not to take a mammography below the age of 50 can be possibly traced back to the long history of advocating breast cancer screening, lay conceptions of risk and mechanisms of risk perceptions, and high levels of ego-involvement in a vital issue such as cancer.

VISITING SCHOLAR

Ton van Haaften Ton van Haaften is a professor of Speech Communication at Leiden University, the Netherlands. His research interests are legal argumentation and political argumentation. Currently, he is a guest researcher at the Department of Speech


Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam.

What brings you to the department of Speech

Communication, Argumentation Theory and

Rhetoric? That’s quite easy: it’s the quality of the research group. I’m interested in legal and political argumentation, and the best place to do research on that is Amsterdam. Does it make a big difference then to be at

the University of Amsterdam and not at your

own university, Leiden University? Well, I have some sort of sabbatical at this moment, so it’s very convenient to be at the University of Amsterdam. Here, I can work without being disturbed all the time. The distance from my own working space, so to say, makes it easier to work. But also the discussions with colleagues, especially with Frans van Eemeren, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and Eveline Feteris, are worthwhile for me. It’s easier to have those discussions when you are in Amsterdam. Additionally, the library of the University of Amsterdam is better on the field of argumentation. So, there are all kinds of advantages to be here. Besides, Leiden is nearby. I still go home and see my wife [laughs].

What kind of research are you currently

working on? At the moment, I am working on two things. One is finishing a monograph on legal argumentation. This is “old work”, so to speak, because I started it when I worked at the law faculty of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, many years ago. After working there, I also had an administrative job at Leiden University for nine years, which I stopped doing almost three years ago. I went back to research and teaching, and picked up this old love for legal argumentation again.

The other thing that I’m working on, in cooperation with a colleague of mine in Leiden, is research on political argumentation and, especially, on the way the political debate is conducted in Dutch parliament. In such a debate, there are all kinds of implicit rules that regulate it. What we want to do is discover what these rules are, and how they developed and changed over time. How can individual politicians change these rules? How do politicians try to find the boundaries of these rules? We try to answer these questions for the Dutch parliament, because, for a research project, you need a specific object of research and we know most of this particular parliament. Especially my colleague; his field is political history. It’s interesting to look at parliament, as it is an institution with a specific culture and a lot of specific implicit rules. Also, from a more general point of view, I’m interested in examining how you can be more specific about this notion of “activity type” and the rules that regulate the reasonableness and effectiveness of argumentation. So, we chose this object of research for both practical and theoretical reasons.

So, are you looking forward to the Dutch

parliamentary elections that will be held in a

fortnight [on June 9, 2010]? Yeah, well, the politicians already have started campaigning now. Tonight, I will actually attend a debate between the leaders of the four largest political parties in the Carré theatre and even be at a meeting with them before the debate begins. But, yes, I’m looking forward to it, because I think that these elections are very interesting. You already see, let’s say, the movements of the political parties and the differences between expectations and what the politicians really do. The position of the leader of the Labour party, Cohen, is interesting, because he started so well, but now things are changing in the debates. And


I think that, at this moment, there is really something to choose. The parties’ standpoints and views are clearer than in the past. So, the debates and the elections are quite exciting at the moment. Is there something you would like to ask the

political party leaders tonight? Of course, I would like to ask Cohen why he messed up so badly in the debates [roar of laughter]. No, I mean, of course you can ask all kinds of questions to the party leaders, but the spin doctors are actually more interesting. What strategy do they have? How are they training the party leaders? Perhaps I would like to talk to the spin doctors more than to the party leaders. Would you consider providing politicians, or

their spin doctors, with advice based on the

results of your research? Well, I think that, when you want to advise politicians, you’re mainly talking about effectiveness. I’m more interested in the rules that, on the one hand, create reasonableness and, on the other hand, affect effectiveness of moves in political debates. But I’m not the kind of speech communication researcher who wants to advise politicians. I’m interested in the political debate as an activity type, as a phenomenon as such. I don’t want to be a spin doctor. You were, amongst other things, vice rector

of Leiden University. What made you decide

to return to teaching and conducting research? The fact that I was a vice rector was merely a coincidence. I mean, I never planned that. Actually, before that, I was a dean of the faculty of arts at Leiden University. I was that till 2005 and I had already decided to stop with the deanship long before, because I was an administrator for seven years and I once started the whole job with the idea in mind that I would only do it for six years. So, seven years was already too long. However, there were all kinds of problems and crises that made me stay on longer. But, at the moment that I was about to stop with this deanship and return to teaching, there was a crisis in the administration of the university as a whole and the president suddenly quitted. It was a difficult situation for the university, so I was asked to join its board. I agreed, but already said at that

time that I would do it for one year, just to help the university through the crisis. That one year became two years, because the crisis was not over yet, but I actually never wanted to be an administrator at that level. So, from the beginning onwards, I had always said that I would do it for a very short term. I’ve learned a lot from being in administration, but it’s not really my cup of tea. I missed the students a lot and also doing research, writing articles and so on. Do you think that, because of your experience

in administration, you teach and conduct

research in a different way than before? I don’t think I do so in a fundamentally different way. But, for example, in teaching, it helps that you are experienced in a specific field such as administration. You can give a lot of examples and explain things from experience. So, I think it’s always enriching for teaching and doing research to have some practical experience. But it does not fundamentally change the way in which you do these things. I don’t think that, because of my experience as an administrator, I am a better teacher or a better researcher. To be a good teacher, you need to love your students and, to be a good researcher, you need to be smart. I don’t claim I’m smart, but I mean that’s more important than being experienced in a specific field. Though, I see the students like it if you also tell them about your own experiences. Going back to the time that you were yourself

a student, did you expect that your career

would have developed the way it has? No, I would have been totally amazed [laughs]. I started studying Dutch language and culture, because I wanted to become a teacher at a secondary school, which was my ideal. But when I finished, that was in 1980, it was impossible to get a job at a secondary school. So, I needed an alternative. Then, a research project came up, funded by the Dutch Science Foundation, and so, as a coincidence, I started to do research and work on my dissertation. When the research project was finished, it was again impossible to get a job at a university in my own field, which was linguistics – though, when studying Dutch language and literature, I already did a lot of speech communication with Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. In fact, my first class at the university, was a class by Frans van Eemeren in 1972 [laughs heartily]. I know Frans longer than my wife! But, because it was impossible to


get a job in linguistics, I got a job at the law faculty of the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, teaching speech communication and argumentation. That was also a coincidence. After that, I was asked to become an administrator at Leiden University, which was also a coincidence. So, it’s a career consisting of a set of coincidences. Have you ever considered switching to

teaching at a secondary school after you

started working in academics? No, my career has been a set of coincidences, but, immediately when I started with this research project, I knew this was really what I wanted to do. I found a new love, so to speak. So, switching to teaching at a secondary school was no longer an option. I find the university one of the most beautiful institutions in the world. There are, of course, all kinds of problems at universities, but I still think it’s the best place to work. How do you see the future of argumentation

studies? I think the field is flourishing. It’s a very diverse field and, in line with the Amsterdam school, I’m interested in argumentative discourse. So, the connection of argumentation studies with discourse studies is for me essential. I would like to make a contribution to the field in that direction, not in other directions like the philosophical direction. All kind of developments are possible and are interesting in principle, but, for me, I think the extended pragma-dialectical theory is promising, because it gives a lot of opportunities and possibilities to link the study of argumentative discourse with all kinds of discourse studies such as conversation analysis. I think a lot can be done there. The concept of activity type, for example, gives the opportunity to link the study of argumentative discourse to discourse studies and other fields like sociology and social psychology. So, I’m quite optimistic, especially from the perspective of this extended pragma-dialectical theory. But we need more research students. That’s another issue. How to promote the study of argumentation? What are your own plans with respect to

research for the next few years?

For the next few years, I want to work with my colleague in Leiden on this project on parliamentary debate. At this moment, we work together with master students, but we would like to start a research project funded by the Dutch Science Foundation with some PhD-students too. That’s what I want to do for the next four or five years, besides finishing the monograph on legal argumentation. One last question, not-research related at all: If

you could choose to be anyone in the world,

dead or alive, who would you like to be for one

day? Do you know the violinist Gidon Kremer? One day Gidon Kremer. I mean, I’m totally happy with what I do, who I am, and so on and so on. But suppose you would be born again and you could choose your own profession and life, then I think I would like to be a musician, because that’s the highest form of art. You can move people without words [roar of laughter]. Perhaps being busy with words all day long makes you want to do something different [continues laughing].

Ton’s choices

Dean Professor

News online Newspaper

Cat Dog

Logic Rhetoric

New York Rome

Poetry Prose

Learning Teaching

Erwtensoep (pea

soup)

Poffertjes (tiny

pancakes)

Qualitative research Quantitative research

A bird in the hand is

worth two in the

bush.

Nothing ventured,

nothing gained.

“THIS ISSA NICE

PLACE”

Places to visit during the ISSA-conference Planning to see more of Amsterdam than just the locations of the ISSA-conference? Or simply feeling like a bit of sightseeing? The members of


the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric disclose their favourite non-touristic places in Amsterdam to you. Central Library

A light, modern building that provides a panoramic view of the city. The central library, designed by Jo Coenen, opened its doors in 2007. It attracts about 5,000 visitors per day, not only because of

its large collection of books, games, films and music, but also because of its study cabins, art exhibitions, free internet (PC accessed and wifi), theatre, café and restaurant. The Central Library can be reached by public transport, using all metros, trams and buses terminating at Central Station. The library is a few minutes’ walk from the station. Linnaeushof & Frankendael The Linnaeushof is a court of red-bricked almshouses built in 1928. With its robust style and only two entrances (at the Linnaeusparkweg and the Wethouder Frankeweg), the Linnaeushof has the air of a medieval fortress. It, in fact, consists of apartments, a church, two schools and three tennis courts.

The Middenweg separates the Linnaeushof from the country estate Frankendael. In the 17th and 18th century, about eighty country estates where built in this area by rich

merchants who decided to devote their time to government or just to live off their investments. Frankendael is the only one of these estates that remains. Its gardens, gateway and coach houses are typical for 18th century Dutch country estates.

Frankendael’s gardens are public and, recently, Frankendael was fully restored to its old glory. The estate is presently used for art exhibitions, receptions and weddings. Also, a restaurant has been added. Public tours of Frankendael are available on Sundays (except for holidays) from 11.00 to 12.00 o’clock (€2.50 pp). Request a tour in English by calling (+31)204233930 or mailing to [email protected]. The Linnaeushof and Frankendael can be reached by taking tram 9 (from Central Station to Diemen Sniep, with a stop at Rembrandtplein amongst others) and getting off at “Hugo de Vrieslaan”. From the tram stop, you can see Frankendael. The Linnaeushof is on the other side of the street.

Muziekgebouw aan ’t IJ (Music Hall at the IJ)

A showpiece of modern design by the Danish architects of “3x Nielsen”. The Muziekgebouw opened in 2005 and focuses on contemporary classical music. It hosts festivals, multimedia concerts and exhibitions. The Bimhuis, a concert hall for jazz and improvisation, is also part of it. On the ground flour, there is a restaurant that is open to the public and serves lunches and dinners. The restaurant has a waterfront open-air seating area and views across the river IJ. The Muziekgebouw can be reached by foot from Central Station (approximately a 15 minute walk). It can also be reached by taking tram 25 (from President Kennedylaan to Passagiersterminal, with a stop at Central Station amongst others) or 26 (from Central Station to IJburg) and getting off at “Muziekgebouw Bimhuis”. Rivierenbuurt

An early 20th-century neighbourhood in the Amsterdam School architectural style. Designed by H.P. Berlage (1856-1934), the buildings in the Rivierenbuurt have the characteristic brick constructions, complicated decorative masonry with organic appearance of the Amsterdam School. On first glance, the apartment blocks seem quite similar. However, their wrought

mailto:[email protected]


ironwork, carved stone and stained glass are, in fact, enormously varied (and display great attention to detail). From the 1930s onwards, the Rivierenbuurt has known relatively many Jewish inhabitants. Anne Frank, for instance, lived with her family at the Merwedeplein. In the Lekstraat, there is an orthodox synagogue.

The Rivierenbuurt can be reached by taking tram 25 (from Passagiersterminal to President Kennedylaan, with stops at Central Station and Rembrandtplein amongst others) and getting off at “Scheldestraat”. Westelijke Eilanden (West Islands) The three artificial Westelijke Eilanden (Prinseneiland, Bickerseiland and Realeneiland) are a beautiful part of Amsterdam, great for walks. The Westelijke Eilanden were built to meet the demands for storage space in the 17th century. On them, you will find a mix of old warehouses (many of them converted to apartments), old houses of fishermen and labourers, and new apartments. The islands are connected by wooden drawbridges. Don’t miss the Zandhoek, the location of the former sand

market on Realeneiland; it’s a particularly nice area. The Westelijke Eilanden can be reached

from Haarlemmerplein; several busses stop there (bus 18, 21, 22, 348 and 353) as well as tram 3 (from Muiderpoortstation to Zoutkeetsgracht, with a stop at Museumplein amongst others). The islands are a few minutes’ walk in north-east

direction.

Ton van Haaften guest researcher at the

Department of Speech Communication,

Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric

From August 1, 2009 to June 31, 2010, Ton van Haaften is a guest researcher at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. Ton van Haaften is a professor of Speech Communication at Leiden University, the Netherlands. His research interests are legal argumentation and political argumentation. Lilian Bermejo Luque guest researcher at the

Department of Speech Communication,

Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric From May 1 to June 30, 2010, Lilian Bermejo Luque is a guest researcher at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University if Amsterdam. Lilian Bermejo Luque is a JAE-doc research fellow at the Philosophy Institute of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Madrid. Her areas of specialisation are argumentation theory, epistemology, theories of rationality and the relationship between practical and theoretical rationality. International conference “Communication and

Argumentation in the Public Sphere”, Galati,

Romania From May 13 to May 16, 2010, the international conference “Communication and Argumentation in the Public Sphere” took place at the Dunarea de Jos University in Galati, Romania. Frans van Eemeren delivered a keynote speech, entitled “Strategic maneuvering: Combining reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse”. Additionally, he gave the workshop “Reconstructing argumentative discourse”. Corina Andone presented the paper “Derailed strategic manoeuvring: the case of ad hominem in a political interview”. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans guest lecturer at

the University of Lugano, Switzerland From May 31 to June 3, 2010, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans taught the course “Argumentation in context” at the University of Lugano, Switzerland. This course is part of the doctoral programme “Argumentation Practices in Context” (Argupolis).

NEWS International conference “How to built up a

legal system?”, Milan, Italy


On June 3 and June 4, 2010, the international conference “How to built up a legal system?” took place at the Bocconi University in Milan, Italy. Eveline Feteris presented the paper “Strategic maneuvering with legal principles in the case of the ‘Unworthy Spouse’”. Marcin Lewinski defends PhD dissertation On June 11th, 2010, Marcin Lewinski successfully defended his PhD dissertation titled “Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring in reacting critically”. Frans van Eemeren was Marcin’s promoter and Bart Garssen his co-promotor. Marcin’s study provides a pragma-dialectical account of how the characteristics of online political discussion forums affect the shape and quality of particular argumentative moves.

BOOK

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE AMSTERDAM

SCHOOL

Eemeren, F.H. van. (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet Political

Discussion Forums as an Argumentative Activity Type. A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Online Forms of Strategic Manoeuvring in Reacting Critically. Amsterdam: SicSat / Rozenberg Publishers.

the amsterdam argumentation chronicle · 2010. 7. 21. · frans van eemeren . from left to right:...

Documents