More than current scholarship in argumentation suggests, successful defense of standpoints depends on learning. As long as arguers comply with a minimum co-operativity, argumentation has genuinely an epistemic interest insofar as any position agreed upon becomes agreeable, i.e., intersubjectively shared because those who did not share it have learned why it is agreeable. Since the epistemic interest of argumentation is absent from most of current scholarship, `intersubjectification' is basically treated as being always possible. In this paper I argue that `intersubjectification' (...) – the `matching of the arguers' communicative backgrounds,' as I will term it – is not a given, but a communicative activity which may or may not succeed. Hence, different types of arguing come into being, depending on how and what arguers are prepared to learn. In the paper, examples are given for unproblematic `intersubjectification,' for `intersubjectification' that requires considerable argumentative co-operation, and for `intersubjectification' that fails utterly. From the analyses, a continuous scale of types of communicative processes of arguing is presented that ranges from one extreme case, termed `dogmatic arguing,' to another extreme case, termed `emergent arguing.'. (shrink)

This paper attempts to systematically characterize critical reactions in argumentative discourse, such as objections, critical questions, rebuttals, refutations, counterarguments, and fallacy charges, in order to contribute to the dialogical approach to argumentation. We shall make use of four parameters to characterize distinct types of critical reaction. First, a critical reaction has a focus, for example on the standpoint, or on another part of an argument. Second, critical reactions appeal to some kind of norm, argumentative or other. Third, they each have (...) a particular illocutionary force, which may include that of giving strategic advice to the other. Fourth, a critical reaction occurs at a particular level of dialogue (the ground level or some meta-level). The concepts here developed shall be applied to discussions of critical reactions by Aristotle and by some contemporary authors. (shrink)

The European Union is making increased efforts to find simpler and more effective ways to function adequately in the eyes of its citizens by using ‘soft law’ instruments such as recommendations. Although they have no legally binding force, recommendations have practical and legal effects occurring partly due to their normative content in which a course of action is prescribed and further supported by arguments intended to persuade the addressees of a political position. Although recommendations function as persuasive instruments due to (...) their argumentation, the characteristics of argumentation and how it is employed to convince the addressee to comply with certain measures have not been investigated at all. The main goal of the paper is to explain how arguments are used by the European Commission when recommending Member States to follow a new course of action. First, we will unravel the justificatory reasons employed by the Commission in order to make Member States comply with new measures and we will show how these reasons are combined into an argumentative pattern : 1–23, 2016; J Argum Context 6: 3–26, 2017). This pattern basically prescribes a course of action to Member States, which is further supported by arguments in which the necessity and advantages of following the proposed course of action are justified. Second, we will explain how and why the way in which the arguments are combined in this complex pattern could be potentially persuasive for the Member States despite the legally non-binding character of recommendations. We will show that the European Commission tries to persuade the Member States to take new measures by evading the burden of proof imposed by the legislative framework. At a more specific level of analysis, we will delve into the implicit premises in the argumentation, which enable us to identify cases of evasion of the burden of proof due to the Commission’s use of implicit starting points which might not be accepted by the Member States. (shrink)