Microsoft Word - IL36.1 Haynal JABedit.docx     © Blair, Copi. Informal Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016), pp. 92-96. Book Review Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (Eds.) Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015. Pp. xiv, 1-293. ISBN 978-3-319-21102-2. eBook US$139.00, €118,99; Hard- cover US$179.00, €147,69 Reviewed by KAITLYN HAYNAL Department of Communication University of Pittsburgh 1123 CL Pittsburgh, PA 15260 kah216@pitt.edu Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, ed- ited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, is a collection of 20 papers selected from contributions to the proceedings of the 8th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), held in Amsterdam in 2014. This collec- tion is filtered into six dimensions of argumentation theory: general perspectives; analysis of argumentation; evaluation of argumentation; argument schemes; contextual embedding of ar- gumentation; and linguistic approaches to argumentation. These six themes chosen for the collection appear to be distilled from the 18 themes featured in the ISSA conference, although the ab- sence of editorial commentary on this organizational scheme leaves such speculation up to the reader. The different parts fol- low a natural order, beginning with ways to approach the pro- cess of argument theory as a whole, continuing with ways to work through the actual argument construction and ending with ways to put these theories into verbal practice. The first section explores general perspectives on argu- mentation theory. Here, we find four chapters, each of which offer approachable pathways scholars can use as entry-points by which to evaluate argument. In “Bingo! Promising Develop- ments in Argumentation Theory,” editor, Frans H. van Eemeren, recommends integration of three critical approaches to argumen- tation theory, including the trend toward empiricalization, atten- Reflections on Theoretical Issues © Blair, Copi. Informal Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016), pp. 92-96. 93 tion to institutional macro-contexts, and movement toward ar- gument’s formalization, which he identifies as three of the major trends of the many recent developments in argumentation theory that he finds promising to scholars. In the next chapter, J. An- thony Blair asks, “What is Informal Logic?” To address this question, he develops analytic tools for recognizing, identifying, and displaying so-called “non-interactive” argumentation, while also theorizing evaluative tools for accessing deductive, induc- tive, and other sorts of argument. In the third chapter, “Toward a Foundation for Argumentation Theory,” G.C. Goddu presents principles already agreed upon by argumentation theorists as a starting point for cross-theoretical evaluation. Finally, Douglas Niño and Danny Marreno’s chapter, “The Agentive Approach to Argumentation: A Proposal,” gives us an agent-centered ap- proach to evaluate argument from, offering a break from main- stream argumentation theory because it does not establish an a priori approach to the function of agents, rather focusing on the agenda of agents. Together, this set of chapters function to clari- fy varied, innovative, and necessary first steps for scholars inter- ested in argument to work through in framing their approach to reasoned evaluation. After setting the groundwork for lenses by which to shape perspectives for evaluating argument, the second section looks at theory surrounding analysis of argumentation, focusing on the various locations where argumentation unfolds, and how dif- ferences in context might inform interpretation. Co-authors Sha- ron Bailin and Mark Battersby write in “Conductive Argumenta- tion, Degrees of Confidence, and the Communication of Uncer- tainty” that conclusions in conductive argument ought to be ex- pressed with varied strength of judgments made based on the unavoidable degree of uncertainty found because of the dialecti- cal nature of argumentation. David Hitchcock, in “The Linked- Convergent Distinction,” forwards argumentation by Stephen Thomas relating to theory of distinctions that argues for the im- portance in an approach to argument, which draws distinctions between ways that various reasons can support a claim “for the strength of support of finding a premiss questionable or false” (p. 84). “Identifying the Warrant of an Argument,” written by James B. Freeman, utilizes Hitchcock’s foundational work on breaking down argument, arguing that in specific cases, attempts to extract the warrant from an argument can be problematic, but resolved by identifying the power of symbolization in formal languages to address problems. Jens E. Kjeldsen’s chapter, “Where is Visual Argument?” ties this section together, observ- ing that argumentation theory currently suffers from a lack of empirical studies regarding how audiences respond to visual ar- Haynal © Blair, Copi. Informal Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016), pp. 92-96. 94 gument, a deficit perhaps due to the difficult analytical chal- lenge associated with interpreting arguments that are enthyme- matic in nature. Each of these pieces provides a new perspective by which to analyze different places of argumentation, contrib- uting to a holistic view of the complex nature and components of argument. Moving this collection of work on understanding argu- mentation theory forward, the third section includes four pieces addressing evaluation of argument, bringing us to the process of looking to answer different questions surrounding assessment challenges faced by argument theorists. Daniel H. Cohen leads off with “Missed Opportunities in Argument Evaluation,” ques- tioning a double standard facing arguers, where they are held culpable for missing obvious objections against their position, but not obvious reasons in their favor through offering an expla- nation for “this odd asymmetry” (p. 121) in evaluation of argu- ment. Maurice A. Finocchiaro argues in “Ubiquity, Ambiguity, and Metarationality: Searching for the Fallacy of Compostition” that ubiquity, ambiguity, and metarationality are key tools for reading fallacies of composition. Although the ubiquity thesis forwards that composition seems to be the most frequent and important of claimed fallacies, little attention has been paid to it in argumentation theory, suggesting that either the fallacy of composition is “common and important, or uncommon and un- important” (p. 133). He continues with explaining that the ambi- guity of the three distinct notions of what is meant by fallacy of composition (reasoning from premises using a term distributive- ly to a conclusion using the same term collectively, reasoning from some property of the parts to the same property of the whole, and reasoning from some property of the members of a group to the same property for the entire group), are confused with one another. Finally, he offers a metarationality hypothesis asking whether fallacies exist in practice or only in the mind of the interpreter. In their chapter “Don’t Feed the Trolls: Straw Men and Iron Men,” Scott Aikin and John Casey provide straightforward advice for recognizing straw, weak, and hollow variants of the “straw men” fallacy. They also advocate for recognition of a fourth variant, the iron man, for cases of inap- propriately reconstructing stronger versions of an opponent’s argument. Finally, Paula Olmos wraps up this section on evalu- ating argumentation, by proposing a multi-dimensional and ex- plicit approach to assessing the role of narrative argument in “Story Credibility in Narrative Arguments.” Section four, argument schemes, includes just two pieces, “Arguments by Analogy (and What We Can Learn about Them from Aristotle)” by Manfred Kraus and “A Means-End Classifi- Reflections on Theoretical Issues © Blair, Copi. Informal Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016), pp. 92-96. 95 cation of Argumentation Schemes” by Fabrizio Macagno. Manfred Kraus concentrates on answering the question of how certain arguments can be deductive, yet defeasible through his alternative solution of viewing “arguments by analogy within a greater range of argument types that derive from comparisons and similarities” (p. 172). Argumentative schemes as prototypi- cal combinations of two separate and distinct abstractions are addressed by Fabrizio Macagno through his problematization of the shortcomings found in existing classifications. Instead, he proposes a new model prioritizing the pragmatic purpose of ar- gument in dialogue. Though the shortest of these sections, the transition from evaluation of argument to argument schemes, helps draw out important nuanced differences in the ways con- struction matters for argument effectiveness. Section five looks at contextual embedding of argumenta- tion. Harvey Siegel’s chapter looks to the significance of con- text-independents in evaluating the argument quality of the con- textual dimension of argumentative norms in “Argumentative Norms: How Contextual Can They Be? A Cautionary Tale.” Next, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and Jean Wagemans ex- plore how pragma-dialectical theory considers the role of insti- tutional conventions in “Reasonableness in Context: Taking into Account Institutional Conventions in the Pragma-Dialectical Evaluation of Argumentative Discourse.” Finally, in “Differ- ence, Distrust, and Delegation: Three Design Hypotheses,” Sally Jackson argues that “design hypotheses” based on new commu- nication technologies offers societies the ability to try out ideas for different ways to reach conclusions and agreements in argu- ment. These differently designed hypotheses create non- competitive manners of completion with empirical hypotheses, contributing to changing theoretical ideas about appeal to au- thority. Finally, section six pulls together papers on linguistic ap- proaches to argumentation, as a means of discussion for impli- cations of the theoretical contestations of construction seen above. In “A Plea for a Linguistic Distinction Between Explana- tion and Argument,” Thierry Herman calls for scholars to utilize a linguistic perspective to better show how rhetorical strategies exploit the blurred but important differences between explana- tion and argument, arguing that the former is more philosophi- cal, while the latter deals with linguistics. The role of verbs of appearance as indicators of argument are explored in “Verbs of Appearance and Argument Schemes: Italian Sembrare as an Ar- gumentative Indicator,” written by Johanna Miecznikowski and Elena Musi. Together, they examine 40 varied texts utilizing the Italian verb sembrare (‘to seem’), looking for application as an Haynal © Blair, Copi. Informal Logic, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2016), pp. 92-96. 96 argumentative indicator, important in guiding the interlocutors and readers. In the third and final piece of this collection, Pierre- Yves Raccah studies discourses for empirical hints involved in institutional conventionalized practices of strategic maneuvering in “Linguistic Argumentation as a Shortcut for Empirical Study of Argumentative Strategies,” further developing prior work to show how his shortcut is of use for those interested in “better description of the semantics of natural languages” (p. 280). Concluding these six unique parts through linguistic approaches to argumentation, sets the tone for keeping in mind the larger institutional preconditions which dictate and influence argumen- tation theory and practice. Overall, this collection offers argu- mentation scholars an impressive and expansive range of reflec- tions on theoretical issues to draw inspiration from in continuing to develop the field of argument.