XXXII. Romanistentag
September 25-28 2011, Humboldt University of Berlin
Section proposal
Prof. Dr. Daniela Pirazzini, Anika Schiemann (M.A.)
Dialogicity in Argumentation: Formal and structural properties
XXXII. Romanistentag at Berlin
(September 25-28 2011)
As a basic principle of communication and as the foundation of human interaction at large
‘dialogue’ is commonly seen as also being a basic principle of language itself. In this context,
the focus is placed not only on the dialogically directed nature of language use but also on the
constitutive role of dialogue for language as a system, a fact that is also reflected by the
frequently employed notion of ‘Language as Dialogue’.
Within the occidental tradition, true to Plato’s fundamental concept of ‘thought’ as an „inner
conversation of the soul with itself“ (Plato, Sophist, 263e), ‘dialogue’ is further associated
with the mental processes of reflection and judgement and is consequently seen as a source of
cognition and knowledge or even as a precondition for any form of establishing the truth (as
for instance in the framework of the Consensus theory of truth by Habermas).
It is this essential interconnection with processes of reflection, judgement and cognition which
causes the aspect of ‘dialogue’ to be particularly significant within argumentative discourse.
In the field of argumentation theory, the highly interactive and hence dialogical character of
argumentation is emphasized in particular by the Pragma-Dialectical Approach (cf. e.g. van
Eemeren/Grootendorst 1992, 2004), where it constitutes one of the main definitional elements
of the notion ‘argumentation’, seen as a “difference of opinion” is assumed to be the general
starting point of any argumentative action and the latter is viewed as primarily aimed at
resolving such difference of opinion by means of “critical discussion” to finally reach an
“agreement”. Thus, without the aspect of interaction between various communication partners
argumentation would virtually lose the basis of its existence. For this reason even in
monologically realized argumentative texts it is possible to presume the implicit presence of a
(fictitious) communication partner as well as a potential dissent which are then accounted for
in the argumentation process, for example by the use of strategies connected with the
anticipation of counter-arguments.
Also within the framework of theoretical approaches which are less focussed on the
interactional aspect of language use, as for instance within the Théorie de la Polyphonie (cf.
e.g. Ducrot 1984 and more recently e.g. Bres/Haillet/Mellet/Nølke/Rosier 2005) which
concentrates mainly on systematic aspects in language, the integration of dialogical elements
as a combination of different “voices” or “standpoints” (points de vue) is considered to be a
constitutive part of argumentation.
Following these introductory remarks, the section proposed here also assumes such a larger
concept of ‘dialogue’ in connection with argumentation. By using the general notion of
‘dialogicity’ we intend to subsume different forms of reference to (potential) previous or
future communication partners. In this way it is possible to take into consideration
argumentation processes which are both dialogically (in the classical sense) and
monologically realized, seeing that in both cases the (potential) presence of another party can
be linguistically marked.
In this context we may ask whether it is possible to identify essentially different forms of
integrating dialogical elements in the course of an argumentation process, and accordingly
whether it is possible to distinguish various “types” of dialogicity, each with specific
functions in the global context of the argumentative action (e.g. with regard to certain
argumentative goals).
XXXII. Romanistentag
September 25-28 2011, Humboldt University of Berlin
Section proposal
Prof. Dr. Daniela Pirazzini, Anika Schiemann (M.A.)
The section proposed here intends to contribute to this object of investigation by focussing on
the identification and analysis of the various linguistic (formal) manifestations of dialogicity
in argumentative texts. Given that within the group of linguistic indicators of dialogicity the
so called ‘connectives’ or ‘connectors’ have already been the object of numerous in-depth
analysis in the field of argumentation theory, this section shall be deliberately dedicated to
other linguistic phenomena at the various levels of linguistic analysis. Thus, on the pragmatic
level for instance speech acts with direct reference to the addressee and with mainly
appellative character can be taken into account. In this context, from the viewpoint of rhetoric
some classical figures of speech connected with ‘addressing’, ‘questioning’ or ‘affectivity’
such as obsecratio, licentia, interrogatio, percontatio, subiectio, dubitatio, sermocinatio etc.
and their specific manifestations can be examined. On the levels of syntax and morphology
possible objects of investigation could be for example parallel structures as well as some
forms of negation or the application of mood. Finally, on the lexical level in addition to
evidently relevant verba dicendi/putandi/sentiendi, numerous other meta-dialogic and metaargumentative expressions can be taken into account, as well as markers of anaphoric
reference with dialogical orientation or also a wide variety of linguistic expressions of
modalization.
We welcome both theoretical and empirical contributions (with respect to various discourse
contexts, e.g. science, religion, politics, law etc.) concerning Romance languages or adopting
a cross-linguistic perspective. Studies exploring diachronic phenomena as well as studies
focussing on synchronic aspects would be appreciated.
Thus, embracing a wide range of linguistic phenomena connected to dialogic references in
argumentation and their functions – true to the main topic of the congress “Romance
Philology in Dialogue...” – we hope to appeal to members of different disciplines. The aim is
to unite various insights and methods of analysis used by scholars of argumentation theory,
communication sciences, linguistics, rhetoric, semiotics, certain areas of philosophy such as
informal and natural logic, epistemology or philosophy of law and thereby generate a fruitful
discussion and cooperation with regard to the study of the dialogic dimension of language in
general and argumentation in particular.
Contact:
Prof. Dr. Daniela Pirazzini
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Institut VII/Romanistik
Am Hof 1
53113 Bonn
daniela.pirazzini@uni-bonn.de
Anika Schiemann
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Institut VII/Romanistik
Am Hof 1
53113 Bonn
anika.schiemann@uni-bonn.de