Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees?

Abstract

This paper discusses the definition of argumentation as a means for persuading an audience on the acceptability of a thesis. It is argued that persuasion is a goal that relates more to the communicative situation, the type of interaction or the type of discourse, rather than to the argumentative nature of it. Departing from the analysis of a short conversational sequence between people who agree on an issue and nevertheless argue, I suggest that a definition of argumentation in terms of persuasion fails to account for what people are actually doing in these situations. I propose instead that several functions may be assigned to argumentation when considering the context in which it is produced: a cognitive function (which helps participants to elaborate a position on the discussed issue), and an identifying function (which enables them to portray themselves through the expression and the justification of their opinion). In the case analyzed here, a third function to which the argumentative activity contributes can also be identified, namely the enhancing of the emotional tonality of the relationship between the participants. While it becomes clear from the discussion of this argumentative sequence that the participants do not seek to persuade each other or some third party, it is not suggested that argumentation never aims at persuading an audience, but rather that persuasion cannot be considered as a defining feature of argumentation.

Frozen

“…Argumentation in interaction may also lack a local dissensus, even when it is clearly not explanatory in nature. Doury (2012) points out that in interaction, participants might argue although they agree on the issue at hand and are not trying to persuade one another. In these instances, argumentation can serve other functions, like cognitive development, identification, or emotional appeal.…”

Wie Vorschulkinder Geltung etablieren

“…In diesen Situationen begründen die Kinder oft nicht aus Meinungsverschiedenheiten heraus, also nicht zur Bearbeitung von Dissens, sondern selbstinitiiert kooperativ/kollaborativ/ko-konstruktiv. Offensichtlich wollen sie Vorschläge und Handlungen des Spielpartners stützen und Konsens über eingebrachte Spielvorschläge ausstellen/ demonstrieren (so auch Birmele et al 2007, Doury 2012, Arendt 2014.…”

Argumentation in the Workplace

“…The first task is to identify the relevant roles of the argumentative situation: "the proponent engages in a discourse of proposition; the opponent, in a counterdiscourse, or discourse of opposition; the third party takes responsibility for the topic of the argument" (Plantin 2002, 363). Such roles can be taken by one, two, three or more speakers, varying from inner dialogue to complex, multi-party argumentative situations (Doury 2012;Plantin 1996). The analyst may wish to examine the presence or absence of politeness, mitigation, and mediation strategies in the expression and management of disagreement and to evaluate to what extent it relates to the professional status of the participants (i.e.…”

“…Such a definition requires additional explanation. First, argumentation arises in a situation of disagreement (see also Doury 2012;Plantin 2005), which can be in praesentia (i.e. the opposing positions are defended by two different interacting participants) or in absentia (i.e.…”