edited by A.W. Chickering and Associates (Jossey-Bass. 
1981), pp. 76-116. 

2. What is most useful about Perry's scheme is his 
account of the transitions from position to position. The 
scheme helps not only to identify "where students are 
coming from" but also in stimulating thought about ways 
to help them progress. 

3. Understanding Arguments, p. 38. 

4. Professor Fogelin made this suggestion in a letter to 
me and I do not know whether he would still abide by it. 
That this is not his published view should be borne in 
mind throughout. 

5. I am reminded of this point by my colleague, AI 
Hayward, who also uses Fogelin's text and who has made 
many helpful suggestions to me about its use. 

6. See, for example, the papers by Donnelin and Kripke 
in Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of language, 
edited by Peter A French et al (The University of Minnesota, 
1979) .• 

Professor G. A. Spangler, Department of Philosophy, 
California State University, long Beach, California 90840. 

abstract 

The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized 
Discussions Journal of Pragmatics 6 (1982) 1-24 

North-Holland Publishing Company 

F.H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst 

In discussions directed towards solving a conflict of 
opinion the participants try to convince one another of 
the acceptability or unacceptability of the opinion that is 
under discussion. If the participants are co-operative, this 
means that they are prepared to externalize their position 
with regard to the opinion and to advance argumentation 
for or against it In this article, which is a condensed 
translation of an article originally published in Dutch 
(Eemeren and Grootendorst 1980), the authors try to 
indicate, by reference to the speech act theory, what this 
entails. 

I n the way in which it was originally conceived, the 
speech act theory is inadequate to characterize argumen-
tation. In the authors view this objection can be met by 
regarding argumentation as an illocutionary act complex 
at a textual level. They formulate the conditions obtaining 
for a happy performance of this act complex and explain 
that for the speaker the performance is linked by convention 
to the perlocutionary act of convincing. I n the case of an 
externalized discussion this means that with his argumen-
tation the speaker tries to make the listener, in turn, 
perform an illocutionary act in which he expresses his 
acceptance or non-acceptance of the opinion. 

30 

announcements 

Second International Symposium 
On Informal Logic 

University of Windsor 
Windsor, Ontario 

June 20-23, 1983 

The First International Symposium on Informal Logic was 
held in Windsor in 19.78. The Second will assess the 
results of the past five years' work in informal logic, see 
what definition the field has achieved, take stock of the 
present battery of problems and methods, and chart the 
course for future development 

Program 

Monday, June 20 1 :30 p.m. Opening Session 

"I nformal Logic: The Last Five Years" 
J. Anthony Blair & Ralph H. Johnson (Windsor) 

3:15 p.m. Plenary Session 

"N eeded: A Better Theory of Argument" 
Trudy Govier (General Studies, Calgary) 

8:00 p.m. Address 

"The Logic of Deep Disagreements" 
Robert Fogelin (Dartmouth) 

Tuesday, June 21 9:00 am. Concurrent Sessions 

A. Missing Premises 

" 'Missing' or 'Hidden' Premises?" 
James Gough (Waterloo) & Christopher Tindale 
(Wilfrid Laurier) 

"Filling Premise-Gaps in Arguments" 
David Hitchcock (McMaster) 

B. Formal vs. I nformal Logic? 

"Typing" 
John Hoaglund (Christopher Newport College) 
"Possible Worlds and I magination in I nformal Logic" 
John Nolt (Tennessee) 

11:15 a. m. Plenary Session 

"Background Logic: Its Significance in Informal Logic" 
Richard Paul (Sonoma State)