Van Eeemeren Chap 9: Dialogue Logics and Formal Dialectics (pp. 246-273)
Dialogue theory encompasses various types of descriptive and formal studies.
Hintikka’s language games
Game theoretic semantics
Logic of questions
Hamblin’s formal dialectic
Lorenzen’s dialogue logic
Barth’s formal dialectic
Formal dialectic is the setting up of systems of precise, but not necessarily realistic rules and the
plotting of the properties of dialogue that might be carried out in accordance with them.
1. Barth’s Conception of Logical Validity (pp. 249-252 )
The word logic does not refer to any properly defined doctrine or theory, but to a field of study
that accommodates a large number of theories. Thus we are not confronted with a justification
problem, but a choice problem.
A logical system must distinguish between correct and incorrect deductions and solve logicointellectual language problems.
If a system solves the problem as set then it is adequate in relation to this problem. There can be
more than one solution to the problem.
A logical system is “objectively better” than another system if and only if there is one logicointellectual language problem for which the system is adequate and the other is not while there is
no such problem for which the converse is true. A system that is better than all competing
systems is “objectively valid”
A logical system is intersubjectively or conventionally valid if and only if the member of a welldefined company have committed themselves explicitly to that system by a certain type of written
declaration to that effect..
2. The Logical Propaedeutic of the Erlanger School (pp. 253-263)
The logical propaedeutic is aimed constructing an “ortholanguage” that enables interlocutors to
engage in a meaningful process of argumentation.
The basic units of verbal communication are elementary statements in which it is either asserted
or denied that a particular predicator belongs to a particular object or set of objects.
By explicit agreement on agreements on usage, the formulation of predicator rules, and the
introduction of new terms by means of definitions, a standardization of the use of predicators is to
be effected.
Another matter the interlocutors must agree on is the establishment of the truth of the elementary
statements.
Rules for the connectives.
A statement is called constructively logically true if and only if the proponent can guarantee that,
ultimately, he will have to defend only some elementary statement that has been asserted by the
opponent at some earlier stage.
Rules for the constructive dialogue game:
(i)
The proponent may attack only one of the compound formulas put forward by the
opponent, or he may defend himself against the opponent’s last attack.
(ii)
The opponent may attack only the statement made by the proponent in the preceding
move, or he may defend himself against an attack in the proponent’s last move
(iii)
The proponent wins if he has elected to defend an elementary formula already put
forward by the opponent.
This view tacitly assumes that the interlocutors agree on the purpose of the discussion. A more
encompassing theory must include the means to discuss these objectives.
3. Barth and Krabbe’s System of Formal Dialectics (pp. 263-271)
Formal3 rules of formal dialectics comprise both rules for the use of logical constants in attack
and defense, and general rules and norms for discussion. Formal2 rules are the rules for the use
of logical constants.
Argumentation is the totality of moves made by the interlocutors taking part in the discussion in
their roles as proponent and opponent.
Formal dialectics consists of five different sorts of rules.
(i)
Elementary Rules
There are language users who assume the roles of P and O.
O should adopt the attitude of contra-position with regard to P’s statements and proposition with respect to
her own. P is to adopt the proposition with respect to his own statements and a neutral position with respect
to O’s statements.
Both protective defense (pd) and counter attack (ca) are available to defend
Principle of Externalization of Dialectics
If either party violates a rule the other party may withdraw without losing it and the other party forfeits all
rights.
(ii)
Systematic Dialectics
P shall always have a chance to defend a statement with another statement once it has been attacked.
(iii)
Realistic Dialectics
P should in certain circumstances have the right to finish an unconditional defense.
(iv)
Thoroughgoing Dialectics
P must have a chance to defend his thesis in all possible ways and O must have a chance to attack P’s thesis
in all possible ways.
(v)
Orderly Dialectics
At every stage both parties rights must be clearly and accessibly defined.
vi)
Dynamic Dialectics
The rules of formal dialectics must further the revision and flux of opinion.
vii)
Winning and Losing Rules
There is both winning the chain and winning the entire discussion.
4. Perspectives (pp. 271-273)
Various extensions of Barth and Krabbe formal2 rules to include quantifiers and modals have
been undertaken.
The idea of higher order rules requires elucidation.