Wednesday OCT 30, 2013, 4 pm CET (Central European Time, e.g., Rome, Berlin, Stockholm)
4.00-4.10 Connect, Welcome
4.10-4:35 Constanza Ihnen (University of Chile): Deliberation and negotiation: Grasping the difference
***RESCHEDULED TO DEC 12 DUE TO TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES***
Abstract: Most contemporary argumentation theorists agree that fallacy judgments are context-dependent. Indeed, over the last two decades, we have witnessed a wave of attempts to characterise different types of contexts and formulate soundness conditions for the use of argumentation within each of these contexts. Among these attempts, Walton’s (1992) theory of “dialogue types” and pragma-dialectic’s (2005) approach to “genres of discourse” and “activity types” are probably the most systematic and advanced.
Both Walton and pragma-dialecticians treat “deliberation” and “negotiation” as two distinct types of contexts, characterised by an overall goal, the individual goals participants are likely to pursue, and the specific conventions that constrain argumentative discourse. In my view, these descriptions are helpful to distinguish deliberation and negotiation from a conceptual perspective, but they are insufficient to identify their occurrence in argumentative practice.
In this talk I will propose empirical criteria to identify the use of deliberation and negotiation in discourse. To this end, I will characterise them on the basis of an analysis of the felicity conditions of ‘proposals’ and ‘offers’, speech acts which are at the centre of deliberations and negotiations, respectively. My theoretical point of departure is the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation.
5:00-5:25: Christian Dahlman (Lund University, Sweden): Imprecise Argumentation and Pseudo-Agreements – Theory and Experimental Results
Abstract: Our research investigates how imprecise arguments give rise to pseudo-agreements. We conducted an experiment where a term in an argument was substituted with a less precise term (deprecization). Participants agreed more with the less precise version of the argument, in spite of the fact that the basis of the argument and the conclusion were the same. We explain how this ‘deprecization effect’ can give rise to pseudo-agreements, committing the fallacy of equivocation.
- Nir Oren (University of Aberdeen, UK)
- Fred Kauffeld (Edgewood College, University of Madison, WC, USA
- Thomas Fischer (University of Houston, TX, USA)
- Dima Mohammed (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)
- Thomas F. Gordon (Fraunhofer-FOKUS, Berlin, Germany)
- Michael Hoffmann (Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA)
- Jean Goodwin (Iowa State, USA)
- Sune Holm Pedersen (Copenhagen, Denmark)
- Sara L. Uckelman (Ruprecht-Karls Universität Heidelberg, Germany)
- Alice Toniolo (University of Aberdeen, UK)
- Marcin Lewinski (New University of Lisbon, Portugal)
- Uses Adobe Connect, see http://www.adobe.com/products/adobeconnect.html
- To connect, go to: https://connect.sunet.se/ecolloq8/
- Before the meeting, test your hardware at : http://admin.adobeconnect.com/common/help/en/support/meeting_test.htm
- To install a missing plug-in, go to: http://www.adobe.com/support/connect/updates.html