Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

In argumentative discourse, it is quite common for premises or
By openly and intentionally appearing to violate one or more of the
communication rules usually followed by anyone who observes the Communication Principle, the speaker conveys something more than the literal content of an utterance standpoints to be left unexpressed they are indirectly indicated in the discourse

With the aid of the Communication Principle, the communication rules, and
some basic principles of logic, such indirectness can be understood, and specific types of indirectness (i.e., unexpressed premises and unexpressed standpoints) can be identified and reconstructed in the analysis.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.1 Implicit Elements in Argumentative Discourse

Certain elements of argumentation may often be left out in practice when this is done intentionally and when the omitted elements are implicitly present in the argumentation, these elements are called unexpressed

(1)

I wouldnt even consider getting a different job, because in most jobs I wouldnt be able to bring along my dog Sherry. - unexpressed premise: I have to be able to bring Sherry
Mark is unhappy. If his wife were more kind to him, he wouldnt be so unhappy. - unexpressed standpoint: Marks wife is not very kind to him Although one might think otherwise, the reason for omitting a premise or a stdp is not always the intention to deceive others. Premises or arguments are usually left out because they seem obvious

(2)

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

Sometimes premises & standpoints are left unexpressed in order to cover up the weakness of the argument (3) a. It is obvious that children should ideally be raised in a family with both a mother and a father, because it has been that way for thousands of years. - unexpressed premise: Everything that has been done for thousands of years is good (this additional element is implicitly present in the explicit argumentation = unexpressed premise)

Even though an unexpressed premise is not explicitly presented, it may still be criticized by the other party:

(3) b. I completely disagree. Why should something be good just because its been done that way for a long time? Wars have been waged for thousands of years, but that doesnt prove war is good.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

Even though implicit, unexpressed elements can crucially influence
how the discussion proceeds and therefore its outcome.

Both protagonists and antagonists can pursue an unexpressed

premise.

In evaluating argumentation, unexpressed elements can be very

important, particularly when evaluating the soundness of that argumentation when analyzing argumentation, it is important to note what elements have been omitted and to figure out which statements need to be added to complete the arguments

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.2 Indirectness and the Rules for Communication

Indirectness = the speaker says what he means in a roundabout way rather than in an indirect way

(1) Would it be too much trouble to take this package to the post office?
(2)

indirect request Indirectness = a special kind of implicit language use

Shop assistant: Its 170. < I inform you that the price of that suit is 170 dollars (= ordinary implicit language use, there is no attempt to convey something additional in a roundabout way) In indirect language use speakers do not only mean to convey more than what they say, but also indicate this to the listener i.e., indirectness communicates sth.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

How do speakers convey that they are saying something indirectly? How is one supposed to know that something different is meant from what is said? When people really want to communicate with each other, they follow the
Communication Principle

The Communication Principle: when communicating, one tries to make ones One must observe the general rules of communication:
1. 2. 3. 4. Be clear Be sincere Be efficient Keep to the point

contribution to communication match the purpose of their communication as much as possible.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1. 2. 3. 4.
Rules for Communication: Be clear = the clarity rule: whatever is said/written should be as easy to understand as possible Be sincere= the sincerity rule: whatever you say must not be insincere Be efficient= the efficiency rule: whatever you say must not be redundant or pointless Be relevant= the relevancy rule: whatever you say must appropriately connect with what has gone before The communication rules are formulated as commandments: any efficient communication presupposes the use of CRs It is immediately noticeable when someone does not obey the rules speakers take advantage of this whenever they want to convey something over and above the literal content of their words i.e., by violating or appearing to violate one or more of the CRs, yet at the same time not abandoning the Communication Principle entirely, they make it clear to the listener that they mean something different or something more than what they are saying. Thus, the CP and the CRs give language users the opportunity to be indirect and to recognize indirectness in others.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.3 Correctness Conditions for Speech Acts

CRs are always applicable regardless of the function of an utterance (e.g., making an announcement, making a promise, explaining something, defending a standpoint etc.) in performing any of these speech acts, the communication rules must be observed

The CRs that need to be observed vary according to the speech act that one performs:

e.g., a promise: the CR Be sincere requires that the speaker must really intend to do what they promise a request: the speaker must sincerely wish the listener to comply with his request

> for each of the various kinds of speech acts, one can give a more precise description of what it means to follow the CP this is done by formulating specific correctness (felicity) conditions that each kind of speech act must meet.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

be correct rule

Argumentation = a speech act certain conditions must be met for the argumentation to Preparatory conditions: they state what the speaker must do in order to follow the efficiency for Argumentation: this rule requires that it is part of the speakers commitments not to undertake a redundant or pointless attempt to convince someone of a standpoint. the preparatory conditions: the speaker must believe that the listener:

a) does not already fully accept the standpoint (if this condition is not met, attempt to convince the other party is redundant)
b) will accept the statement used in the argumentation

the

c) will review the argumentation as an acceptable defense (or refutation) of the proposition to which the standpoint refers (if either b. or c. is not met, the speakers attempt is pointless it is not possible to convince sb by making use of an argument that is unacceptable to the other party)

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

Responsibility conditions: describe what the speaker must believe in order
to follow the sincerity rule

For Argumentation = the speaker will try to convince the opponent without
deceiving

The responsibility conditions that must be met for argumentation statethat

the speaker believes that: a. the standpoint is acceptable b. the statements used in argumentation are acceptable c. the argumentation is an acceptable defense (or refutation) of the proposition to which the standpoint refers.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.4 Violations of the Communication Rules

Both the speaker and the listener try to observe the CP and the CRs problems arise when it appears that one of the CRs has been violated without it being the case that the speaker has abandoned the CP > in response to this, the listener does not immediately assume that the speaker (through unclarity, insincerity, inefficiency, or pointlessness) has disrupted the communication for no good reason he will, instead, try to interpret the speakers words in such a way that the apparent violation acquires a plausible meaning.

e.g., Someone interrupts an animated conversation about a mutual friends love life with the irrelevant remark Its a little windy today listeners are likely to interpret (to rationalize) the remark: as a warning that the friend in question has just entered the room

Speakers can take advantage of this rationalizing tendency on the part of their listeners and
intentionally convey something more than they are literally saying by means of an open violation of one of the CRs = this is what happens in indirectness

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.5 Different forms of indirectness

1.

All communication rules can be used to convey something indirectly, and violations of different communication rules lead to different forms of indirectness. The Clarity Rule: speakers must make sure that listeners understand what they mean > on the grounds of this rule, listeners can assume that it is possible for them to figure out the speakers meaning a promise expressed vaguely or clearly can be interpreted as an indirect expression of reluctance or even refusal:

(1)

Gary: When are you going to fix that broken coffee grinder? Mary: Sometime

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

2. The Sincerity Rule: the speaker must be sincere
> on the grounds of this rule, the listener can assume that the speaker means what he says by saying something obviously insincere, the speaker can ironically (and indirectly) convey the opposite of what he actually says:
(2) So you didnt even recognize your ex-boyfriend any more? He must have been flattered.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

3. The Efficiency Rule: the speaker may not say anything that he knows to be redundant or pointless > on the grounds of this rule, the listener can assume that whatever the speaker says is not flawed in terms of efficiency by using obvious redundancy, a speaker may convey some information indirectly
(3) I hereby open this meeting! (uttered by a committee member who thinks the meeting time is being wasted on chit-chat and who wants to make it clear (indirectly) that it is high time they got down to business) (4) When will I ever find happiness? (a pointless question as it has no answer- can be used to indirectly express a complaint)

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

4. The Relevancy Rule: the speaker must ensure that their statements are a suitable response to what has preceded them

On the grounds of this rule, listeners can assume that the speakers
statements are suitable responses to the prior utterances a response that obviously does not connect up with what has just been said, can be used to convey that the speaker refuses to discuss he topic:
(5) Mary: How would you feel about inviting John to have supper with us sometime? Gary: I think Ill go look and see if theres a can of beer in the fridge.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

In all these variants of indirectness, speakers choose not to say
directly what they mean

In practice this phenomenon is quite widespread + there exist a

great number of reasons:
E.g., they might consider a question more polite than a direct request or
command They might be afraid of losing face if their suggestion is rejected They might consider it to be more strategic no to express their intentions too openly

Irrespective of the reason, what they say has an indirect meaning

this meaning will only be understood if speakers ensure that their violation of the communication rules is noticed and correctly interpreted by the listener

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.6 Making Unexpressed Standpoints Explicit

When speakers do not explicitly express their standpoint, they usually expect the listener to be
able to infer this standpoint from the arguments put forward (Why else would they bother to present argumentation?)

An unexepressed stp may be identified by using logic as a tool

all argumentation is based on reasoning and if speakers argue sincerely, they believe that their reasoning is valid a listener who takes the speaker seriously must assume that the latter has at least made an attempt to present valid reasoning (6) The only good museum director is, of course, one who buys your work. If he doesnt do that, hes a real jerk. Now Mr. Bianchi has never bought anything of mine. (uttered by a sculptor) the stp is unexpressed. It is, however, defended and the defense consists of one single argument, which is based on one line of reasoning. The stdp is not expressed therefore the conclusion of the line of reasoning that is being presented is missing. The speaker who takes the argument seriously will assume that the reasoning is valid and will supply the missing conclusion themselves i.e., they will try to formulate a conclusion that logically follows from the reasoning presented.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

it is easy to reconstruct the reasoning of this argument:

1. 2. 3.

If a museum director does not buy my work, then hes a real jerk. Mr. Bianchi has never bought any of my work. Therefore: Mr. Bianchi is a real jerk.

The reasoning is valid as there are no holes in the logic. If one accepts statements 1 and 2, one is forced to accept the conclusion as well assuming that the sculptor does not intend to abandon the CP, statement 3 can be considered to be the unexpressed standpoint.
Procedure: one must first determine what the logical conclusion would be. If there exist more than one posibility, one should choose the standpoint that in light with the context and background information is most in accordance with all the communication rules.

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.7 Making Unexpressed Premises Explicit

With the aid of the CP, the CRs and logic, one can render unexpressed premises

explicit Technically, any piece of argumentation missing one of the premises amounts to an invalid reasoning:

(7) Olga: Claus likes to yodel, because he comes from Tyrol. - the statement that Claus comes from Tyrol does not justify the conclusion that he likes to yodel the reasoning is only valid if another statement is added to it: we can identify this statement by connecting the explicit premise to the stp by means of an if.then statement: If Clause comes from Tyrol, then he likes to yodel. - if this statement is added to the argument, then the reasoning is logically valid (modus ponens reasoning: if the premises are valid, then the conclusion is necessarily valid): 1. If p then q (If Claus comes from Tyrol, then he likes to yodel.) 2. p (Claus comes from Tyrol) 3. Therefore q (Claus likes to yodel)

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

supplemented with an Ifthen statement

The reasoning underlying the argumentation above became valid when it was
< this is not, however, sufficient: the added statement is a merely literal repetition of what was already implied by the other statements = it is redundant violates the efficiency rule > it would be more constructive if one attributed to the speaker a statement that is more informative and which does not violate the efficiency rule: > one may add one of the following statements, the one which best fits the verbal and non-verbal context of the argument and that can be reasonably attributed to the speaker: a. Every Tyroler likes to yodel. b. All Tyrolers like to yodel. c. Tyrolers like to yodel. d. Most Tyrolers like to yodel.

> the statement which gets added to the argumentation counts as an unxepressed premise:
(8) Olga: Claus likes to yodel, because he comes from Tyrol (and Tyrolers like to yodel).

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

1.8 Unexpressed Premises in a Well-defined Context

The context may be well-defined, providing specific clues about the way in

which the unexpressed premise should be formulated one must be careful not to formulate the unexpressed premise too hastily or by relying on preconceived notions. takes place in a context that is not well defined unless such a non-specific interpretation is unfair to the speaker i.e., if the nonspecific interpretation attributes to the speaker a violation of the CRs, then one should check whether the context also allows for another, more specific interpretation that does not entail a violation of the communication rules

Procedure: it is best to start from the assumption that argumentation

Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises

(9) (Sally responding to her friend who has invited her to a party): I dont think you should ask me to go with you to that party. Ronald and Marlene are in Portugal!

Without further information about the context, there is no apparent connection between the argument (Ronald and Marlene are in Portugal!) and the standpoint (I dont think you should ask me to go with you to that party.). In this case, the listener trying to identify the unexpressed premise can do little more than to supplement the reasoning with an if..then statement, so that at least the requirement for logical validity be met. If more is known about the context, then a more meaningful statement (and closer to the intention of the speaker) can be reformulated: e.g., if Sally is known to be very sad because her boyfriend Ronald has gone on holiday with her friend Marlene, then the following formulation is possible:

(10) Someone who is disappointed in love cannot be expected to want to go to a party.

Bibliography
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Eemeren, F.H. van (ed.). 2001. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst, A.F. Snoek Henkemans, J.A. Blair, Johnson, E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, and D. Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Berlin/Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter/Foris