CarloMarzocchi,Brussels
, Belgium
1. Introduction
This paper will introduce a certain number of concepts and analytical tools drawn from the field of Argumentation Studies. It will be argued that analyzing source and target language texts in terms of argumentation techniques can help the interpreting scholar focus on the interpreter’s responsibility in mediating between language users belonging to different cultures. After stating the methodological assumptions under
lying this claim, the main issues at stake in the study of argumentation will be dis
cussed briefly (2, 3), together with their relevance to Interpretation Research and Theory (IRT) (4) and a few concluding remarks (5).
The claim that the study of argumentation can help clarify the communicative contexts in which interpreting occurs as well as some of its determining factors relays on the assumption that all phenomena involving language and communication can be approached from several different angles, according to the purpose of investiga
tion; the ultimate test for the viability of any method of enquiry is then its ability to generate knowledge relevant to the goals of the discipline.
It will also be assumed that IRT aims at establishing both descriptive and norma
tive knowledge, i.e. IRT attempts at accounting for the mechanisms at work in the interpreting process as well as establishing principles for the assessment of perfor
mance and the rational foundation of teaching practices.
2. An introduction to the study of argumentation
The “analysis of argumentation” referred to in the title is the analytical compo
nent of the wider field of investigation known as Argumentation Studies („théorie de 1’argumentation”, “argumentatietheorie”, also referred to as “modern rhetorics”,
“nouvelle rhétorique”, “informal” or “natural logic”) that may also consist of philo
sophical, empirical and didactic components (see van Eemeren 1994).
Speculative interest in argumentation dates at least as far back as to ancient rhetorics, with subsequent highlights for example in medieval logic. However, the variety of terms used today reflects an unprecedentedly wide variety of approaches, methods and indeed of definitions of the object of enquiry. A unifying factor, though, lies in the fact that contemporary works largely draw on groundwork by a.o. A. Naess, S. Toulmin and C. Perelman in the fifties; then, after a long decline, interest in rhetorics and argumentation was revived, partly owing to interest from other disci
plines, such as the philosophy of science, logic, legal studies and the study of mass communication (see van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Kruiger, 1984, ch. 3).
Section 3. Interpreting
Argumentation is an ambiguous notion: a survey among language users would probably elicit answers relating argumentation to:
• public speaking
• reasoning
• justifying/refuting theses
• convincing/persuading
• winning/loosing arguments
Although all these terms refer to (interactive) processes, the notion of argumen
tation is also commonsensical enough for language users to be able to recognize stretches of discourse of variable length, tenor, mode of production etc. as instances of argumentation; this intuition is indeed reflected by several scholars in the field of textlinguistics who posit an “argumentative text type", defined in broadly functional terms as text promoting support for or rejection of certain ideas (van Dijk 1978, De Beaugrande & Dressier 1981). In other words, argumentation can be seen both as a process and as a product (significantly, the same applies, with wide-ranging theoreti
cal consequences, to translation and interpreting, see Hátim & Mason 1990: 3, Pöchhacker 1995: 33).
Van Eemeren et al. (1984) summarize the main approaches to the study of argu
mentation and submit a more analytical definition of argumentation, which is then used as the basis for a very productive strand of research known as “pragma-dialec
tics”. For the purpose of this paper, however, a less detailed definition by the same authors should be sufficient; introducing pragma-dialectics, F.H. van Eemeren states that
Scholars of argumentation are interested in how argumentative discourse can be used to justify or refute a standpoint in a rationalway (1994: 3, empha
sis added).
In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is ideally seen as taking place within a criti
cal discussion between language users whose goal is to solve a difference of opinion.
The theory then has to generate a set of pragmatic rules, comparable to the Gricean maxims, that regulate behaviour in such a discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst 1994: 21). Together, these rules amount to a criterion for reasonableness, which is defined in terms of inter-subjective validity (the set of rules would have to enjoy some conventional status among discussants) as well as problem-solving validity (they would have to be instrumental in solving the conflict).
Although this comprehensive pragma-dialectic approach can accommodate, by reformulation, most pre-existing insights in the subject, no “standard theory” of argumentation exists. Therefore, attempting a systematization cannot mean present
ing a corpus of established knowledge; rather, attention can be drawn to the ques
tions that researchers ask, bearing in mind that the answers are by nature contro
versial.
Carlo Marzocchi
3. Main issues in the study of argumentation
The definition quoted above reflects the two main thrusts of contemporary inves
tigation into argumentative discourse, which can have a primarily descriptive and/or normative focus, i.e. investigate “how discourse is used” to justify standpoints and/or how this can be done “in a rational way“, as in the pragma-dialectical approach. The distinction between these two objectives is not clear-cut, and descriptive research will inevitably rely on some (unexpressed) assumption as to what constitutes a suc
cessful, sound or valid argument. In pragma-dialectics, description is clearly seen as auxiliary to the establishment of norms: analysis will then be a normative reconstruc
tion, i.e.
a calculated merger of the ideal and the real, that satisfies both the normative requirements exemplified in the ideal model and the descriptive data of empir
ical reality (van Eemeren 1994: 5).
The normative reconstruction of pragmatic exchange is also instrumental in study
ing those patterns of argumentation traditionally perceived as incorrect, dishonest, unsound, i.e. those known as fallacies. Explaining why “standard” fallacies are in fact inadequate arguments has long been one of the main goals of argumentation theorists (see Hamblin 1970). However, since the normative study of argumentation is of less direct relevance to the interpreting scholar, an illustration of issues in descrip
tive argumentation analysis will be deemed sufficient here.
As in other fields of enquiry into language use, analyzing argument means to identify patterns, either within the product of argumentation (chains of propositions, utterances, texts, text corpora) or in the argumentative process (the exchange of speech acts in a situation partially determined by the speakers’ pragmatic inten
tions). Levels of analysis will include:
(a) describing overall structures that distinguish argumentation from other modes of discourse. Models of argumentation usually operate at this level of abstraction, be they descriptive, such as Toulmin’s well known procedural model, or normative such as the above-mentioned rules for “legal moves” in argumentative interaction set out by van Eemeren et al. Insights from other disciplines are also relevant to this level of analysis, such as for example van Dijk’s “superstruktuur” of argumentative texts (1978: 137-162).
(b) attributing to units in argumentative discourse the basic functions of support
ing “arguments” (premisses) or supported “standpoints” (conclusions); when analyz
ing actual discourse the focus is often on methods for reconstructing unexpressed premisses.
(c) describing how these basic functional units are put together in structures: i.e.
“simple” vs. “multiple", or - in case of more arguments supporting one standpoint - coordination vs. subordination; the description of these structures can resort to vari
ous degrees of formalization, often depending on whether the analyzed instances are sequences of propositions out of context or actual, context-determined texts.
(d) investigating the nature of the supporting relation between arguments and standpoints, i.e. asking by which mechanism a particular conclusion can be drawn from a set of premisses. Perelman’s collection of “argument schemes”, Toulmin’s
Section 3. Interpreting
“warrants", Grize’s “natural logic operators” are all attempts at answering this ques
tion, as indeed were Aristotle’s topoi. A distinct approach to this issue is Anscombre
& Ducrot’s “argumentativisme radical” (see 1983, 1986, Ducrot 1980): in it, French lexical items such as mais,pen, quelques are analyzed in terms of the argumentative orientation that they lend to sentences, in that their presence selects a range of possi
ble supported standpoints. The aim of this “théorie linguistique de 1’argumentation”
is to construe the semantics of as many items as possible in terms of their “argumen
tative orientation”. Another traditional goal at this level of analysis is accounting for figurative use of language, i.e. redefining figures of speech in terms of their potential as “compacted” arguments (see Reboul 1986).
4. The relevance of argumentation analysis to IRT
The case for approaching some issues in IRT with concepts and methods drawn from the study of argumentation is based on three assumptions, each of them lead
ing to claims that could be addressed in future research and that relate to the theo
retical approach to, and the instruction in interpreting:
(a) generally speaking, argumentation is the dominant mode of discourse in many
“interpreted” situations;
(b) more practically, the analysis of argumentation is text analysis, i.e. it is a pow
erful key to text structure and text meaning; and
(c) the analysis of argumentation is a contrastive analysis, in that the choice of argument schemes is context-specific and culturally bound.
As far as (a) is concerned, argumentative discourse not only happens to be used in, but actually defines many of the communicative situations where interpreting takes place - indeed it characterizes some of the institutions that resort to the perfor
mance of interpreters. The communicative purpose of situations such as a parlia
mentary debate or a courtroom hearing can be described, in Plantin’s terms (1993), as the overcoming of a (latent) conflict between different lines of action, between
“incompatible answers to the same initial (implicit) question” (1993: 233). Under (a), the study of argumentation appears thus as the theoretical framework for a mode of discourse that is so often the input of an interpreting process.
The notion of communicative situations being defined by their global argumenta
tive function is significantly paralleled by the fact that individual texts too can be qualified in terms of their “overall purpose”. This appears for example in Hátim &
Mason’s definition of text type:
a conceptual framework that enables us to classify texts in terms of commu
nicative intentions serving an overallrhetorical purpose (1990: 140, empha
sis added).
Texts produced within a given situation will reflect that situation’s communica
tive function; texts will thus be informed by a “text act”, i.e. by the predominant illo
cutionary force of a series of speech acts. When the predominant focus of a situation (and of the texts therein) is on argumentation, interpreting performance will arguably have to be assessed on the basis of the interpreter’s success in conveying the argu
Carlo Marzocchi
mentative purpose, possibly to the detriment of other kinds of equivalence or of received ideas concerning fidelity.
As far as TL content is concerned, this would involve for example assessing com
mon interpreting operations such as addition, deletion and substitution in terms of their impact on the argumentative force of the text. As far as form is concerned, the explicitness of argumentative links could be seen as one of the parameters forTL adequacy. Furthermore, further research could investigate how describing lexical items on the basis of their argumentative orientation (as in the French approach described under 2.d above) can help assess the treatment of individual SL items in the interpreting process. In other words, under assumption (a) the study of argumentation also appears as a possible source of parameters for error analysis.
The assumption under (b) relates to the explanatory potential of argumentation analysis. This was shown a.o. by Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958, part 2 and 3), with their typology of argument schemes, the notion of prior agreement, i.e the knowledge and beliefs that the speaker assumes as shared by the direct audience, and the notion of universal audience, i.e. the ideal picture of an audience con
strued by the speaker; these concepts are all instrumental in relating a text to the social and cultural context in which it originated. The relevance of this level of analy
sis appears more clearly when one considers that IRT scholars by now widely adopt broad, communicative notions of “meaning” and “equivalence"; this is clearly the case with the Paris School’s vouloir dire (see a.o. Déjean Le Féal 1994: 11) and Gile’s passing reference to equivalence in clearly rhetorical, impact-oriented terms:
Students should understand that they have to formulate the message so that the impact of the TL text on the receiver is closest to the impact the author of the text is trying to achieve (Gile 1992: 187, emphasis added).
Exploring the choice of argument schemes in a text, the picture of a universal audience that it upholds, the prior agreement between speaker and audience that it assumes can help grasp this very “intended meaning”. Ability in recognizing argumentative structures and schemes in the SL text can therefore be seen as an importantcomponent of an interpreter’s competence.
The claim under (c) results from the fact that the patterns emerged from the analysis of argumentation (see above, 2.1.) can be correlated to specific social occa
sions, types of discourse or indeed whole cultural systems. Research has indeed iden
tified context-specific differences in the use of argumentation, that can hamper com
munication if ignored or misconstrued, as shown by B. Hátim (1989, 1990) with ref
erence to English/Arab interaction. Hátim & Mason (1990: 149) relate how a rather familiar English structure was mistranslated owing to the failure to recognize it as a
“counter-argument", with concessions introduced by certainly and the actual stand
point introduced by but or however. A study of Dutch political discourse (Marzocchi 1995) suggests that a similar structure is used strategically: presenting possible objec
tions as legitimate and yet subordinate appears as a distinctive feature of political dis
course within a supposedly non-conflictual setting, such as the Queen’s address to Parliament (in fact, lexical indicators of argumentation are rare in the examined
Section 3. Interpreting
texts). The ability to identify this mode of argumentation, and to perceive a hierarchy among the standpoints put forward, is instrumental in translating similar texts.
The correlation of argument structures to specific social groups or cultures is a potential aid to translation in that it makes some aspects of discourse comparatively predictable. In fact, the very act of argumentation is predictable: Jungslager (1994) reports experimental results showing that language users confronted with pairs of utterances actually expect them to form an argument and are able to supply connec
tives when explicit links lack. More specifically, Hátim & Mason (1990: 152-159) suggest that prior knowledge of argumentative structures triggers text type expecta
tions as to the further development of discourse, and that research is needed into how these expectations can contribute, for instance, to anticipation in simultaneous interpreting. Pending clarification of the underlying psycholinguistic mechanisms, it may be submitted that successful anticipation requires at least an intuitive knowledgeof adequateargument schemes in the SL andTL culture.
A related issue is the extent to which SL argument schemes are equally effective or adequate in the TL culture, which in turn raises the question of the extent to which the TL listeners share the knowledge and belief system assumed by the speaker for his/her direct audience. The work on political discourse mentioned above suggests that this may already be an obstacle in translating between Dutch and Italian, i.e. the languages of two comparatively not so distant cultures. Further research could inves
tigate this problem in language pairs separated by a wider cultural divide.
5. Concluding remarks
Argumentation analysis was primarily put forward here as a key to meaning, i.e.
as a highly productive method to set a text against the background of the specific knowledge and belief systems shared by speakers and their audiences; this back
ground is relevant to the IRT scholar in that it influences some aspects of content organization in the actual text. More practically, the assessment of interpreting per
formance could also use criteria derived from the study of argumentation: pending further research, overall consistence of the TL text with the prior agreement between speaker and audience would appear as the threshold for an accept ableperformance.
It lies beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the translatability of culture-spe
cific argument schemes, or the related translation vs. adaptation issue. However, it may be submitted that looking at texts in terms of the argumentative use of lan
guage puts IRT into an entirely different perspective, where the notion of fidelityis possibly less central than that of mediation.
References
Anscombre, J.C. & Ducrot, 0.1986. Argumentative et informative. In: Meyer, M. (ed.) De la métaphysique á la rhétorique. 79-94. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Anscombre, J.C. & Ducrot. O. 1983. Largumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Mardaga.
Beaugrande, de R. & Dressier, W. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Carlo Marzocchi
Déjean Le Féal, K. 1994. Pedagogic raisonnée de la traduction. Terminologie et Traduction. 3.
7-66.
Ducrot, O. 1980. Les échelles argumentatives. Paris: Minuit.
Gile, D. 1992. Basic Theoretical Components in Interpreter and Translator Training. In:
C. Dollerup & Loddegaard, A. (eds.) Teaching Translation and Interpreting. Training, Talent and Experience. 185-193. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Gríze, J.B. 1977. Logique et discours. In: van Dijk, T.A. & Petőfi S.J. (eds.) Grammars and Descriptions. Studies in text theory and text analysis. 105-131. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Hamblin C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Meuthen.
Hátim, B. 1989. The Pragmatics of Argumentation in Arabic: the Rise and Fall of a Text Type.
Text. 11-2. 189-199.
Hátim, B. 1990. Argumentative Style across Cultures. In: Kőiméi, R. & Paine, J. (eds.) Babel.
The cultural and Linguistic Barriers between Nations. Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press.
Hátim, B. & Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London/New York: Longman.
Jungslager, F.S. 1994. Identifying Argumentation. In: van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R.
(eds.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. 112-118). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Marzocchi, C. 1994. Interpretazione e argomentazione. Alcune note preliminari all’analisi del- l’argomentazione nel discorso politico. In: Snel-Trampus, R.D. (ed.) Studi di neerlandistica.
Traduzione - Interpretazione - Lingua. 63-72 Trieste: Lint.
Marzocchi, C. 1995. Analisi e interpretazione del discorso argomentativo. Unpublished thesis, SSLLMIT, University ofTrieste.
Naess, A. 1966. Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics. London:
George Allen and Unwin (Translation of Om meningsytring: En del elememére logiske emner, Oslo 1941).
Perelman C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. 1958. La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de Targumentation.
Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Plantin, C. 1993. Situation rhétorique. Verbum. Special issue on Rhétorique et sciences du lan- gage. 229-239.
Pöchhacker, F. 1995. Simultaneous Interpreting: A Functionalist Perspective. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics. 14. 31-53.
Reboul, O. 1986. La figure et fargument. In: Meyer, M. (ed.), De la métaphysique é la rhé
torique. 175-187. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Reiss, K. & Vermeer, J. 1984. Grundlegungen einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen:
Max NiemeyerVerlag.
Toulmin, S. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: University Press.
van Dijk,T.A. 1978. Tekstwetenschap. Een interdisciplinaire inleiding. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. & Kruiger, T. 1984. The study of Argumentation. New York: Irvington (translation of Argumentatietheorie, Leiden 1981).
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (eds.) 1994. Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam:
International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (SicSat 4).
van Eemeren, F.H. 1994. The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. In: van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (eds.). 3-8.
van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. et al. (eds.). 1990. Argumentation Illuminated. Amsterdam:
International Centre for the Study of Argumentation (SicSat 1).