Download - Aspects of scientific discourse: Conditional argumentation

Eng/sh/orSpeofic Pu$mes. Vol. 11. pp. l&139. 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd. Pmted m the USA.

0889-4906/92 ss.00 + NJ CopYlisht ‘0 1992 The Amencan UNvemty

Aspects of Scientific Discourse: Conditional Argumentation

Marialiorsella GerdaSindennann

Abstract - One of the purposes of scientitic discourse is to convince or persuade a scientific audience of the truth or value of the ideas presented. The manner in which this is attained is by careful reasoning or argumentation. We examine scientific argumentation from the following angles: (a) type of reasoning involved fiiductive or deductive); (b) a tkequent semantic relation, namely conditionality; (c) the constituent elements of the semantic relation of conditionality; and (d) the strength of dependence in this semantic relation. Finally, we apply a formal model of argumentation and a natural model of reasoning to three passages in the domain of the hard, applied, and social sciences.

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to examine argumentation as a particular type of discourse used in science. Working with scientists we explored the ways in which scientists interpret conditional argumentation by focussing on specific aspects of the discourse. We report on their perception of the linguistic realization of this type of argumentation, and we include their brief explanation of the content of the passages chosen for study. In ESP courses, much of the work aimed at the comprehension of scientific literature in English fails to include argumentation as a particular type of discourse, which, in our view, is quite frequent in science. But whereas applied linguists have not paid much attention to argumentation and to ways of reasoning, those working in artificial intelligence are very much interested in developing models of natural reasoning. In this exploratory paper we take three passages from physics, medicine, and economics, first determine the characteristics of conditional argumentation, then apply a logical model based on formal reasoning, and finally apply a more recent model, the Toulmin model, that is better adapted to natural reasoning or natural argumentation. The point of the exercise is to work with the Toulmin model to see if it could be used effectively in ESP classes.

Argumentation

At the end of the 20th century argumentation is as much a topic of interest to philosophers and linguists as it was at the time of Aristotle and Cicero. People argue in social interaction of everyday life and in the formal debate of institutional interaction. This is the reason why the terms argumentation and

Address correspondence to: Maria Horsella, P.O. Box 2777. Santiago, Chile.

129

130 M. Horsella and G. Sinderrnann

discourse are often used interchangeably and are immediately associated with rhetorical devices that may persuade an audience effectively and with elegance. In a way similar to that of Austin (1962), who states that the words in our discourse result in action, Perelman (Perelman & Albrechts-Tyteca, 1958) says that

Notre trait6 ne s’occupera que de moyens discu~sifs d’obtenir I’adhesion des esprits: seule la technique utilisant le langage pour persuader et pour convaincre sera exam&e par la suite. (p. 10)

The conviction of the audience is, however, affected by psychological and social factors, and by the circumstances and the particular setting in which arguments are proposed. A lawyer defending a case in court does not depend solely on the facts presented, but also on the composition of the jury; the status of the lawyer himself; and on economic, political, and social factors, to name a few. We may think that this situation is quite different from that of a scientist reading a paper in a scientific conference, but in both cases we need to see argumentation as a persuasive dialogue by means of which the speaker wishes to convince his audience of the correctness or truth of the statements made.

An argument is, in general terms, any proof, demonstration, or reason that is useful for engaging support, or persuading, or convincing (the audience) of the validity of a statement. Aristotle, the founder of logic and rhetoric, wanted to tind “a method by which one could reason correctly.” Cicero said that an argument is “anything that makes believe.” St. Thomas Aquinas stated that an argument persuades the mind to assent - arguit. Since the time of St. Thom- as, philosophers have tried to establish methods of reasoning that may be accepted because of their correctness. In fact, this is the way in which formal logic developed. A well-known example is syllogism, where the constituent elements are: (a) a major premise, (b) a minor premise, and (c) a conclusion. The conclusion is derived only from the elements contained in the premises. However, this type of reasoning is not very common in real life, so more recently attempts have been made to describe and implement models of natural argumentation. Toulrnin (1958) proposed a model of natural argumentation that is well structured and persuasive. The constituent elements have names that are quite descriptive of the functions they have: the claim, grounds, backing, and warrant. The warrant is the general principle that confers validity to the argumentation. Connor and Johns (in press) conducted a study to determine “field-dependent” features of argumentation in academic writing and found that the Toulmin model was uniquely suited to reproduce the structure of arguments in business policy proposals and in grant proposals in engineering.

In the scientific disciplines there are two main types of argumentation: deductive and inductive reasoning. In formal deduction, the method used in logic and mathematics, the correctness of the method ensures the validity or truth of the conclusion. We illustrate this with the syllogism below:

Ali men are mortal. Socrates is a man. (Therefore) Socrates is mortal.

Conditional Argumentation in Scientific Discourse 131

In inductive reasoning the argument begins with a hypothesis that is supported by a number of observations or experiments to reach a conclusion which is probabilistically valid. We illustrate below:

In case 1 circumstance C accompanies phenomenon P, in case 2 circumstance C accompanies phenomenon P, in case 3 circumstance C accompanies phenomenon P. (Then) in all the studied cases circumstance C accompanies phenomenon P.

If the number of cases is sufficiently large we may say that the relation between C and P is causal.

Deductive and inductive reasoning are the cornerstones upon which scientific knowledge is founded. A set of postulates is tested over and over again until the scientific community accepts them as valid. When a well tested statement is accepted it becomes a law having the highest level of universal accep- tance.

Conditionality

Conditionality is very frequent in science, particularly in the formulation of hypotheses and theories, due to the set of conditions that must be met, and also because of the probabilistic nature of the tentative conclusion.

Earlier studies (Horsella & Sindermann, 1986, 1988) showed that complex sentences are difficult to process and interpret; it therefore seemed interesting to study conditionality in scientific discourse and its role in argumentation. Mead and Henderson’s study (1983) is quite perceptive on the several roles of conditionals in economic texts, but touches on the discoursal structure of argumentation only tangentially.

A conditional sentence may be considered a complex sentence formed by a main clause and a dependent clause introduced by a subordinating conjunction. The linguistic realization in real conditionals is of the type:

A. If present . . . then future. In the case of hypothetical conditionals it is:

B. Ifpast. . . then conditional.

In the domain of science we find facts and events that normally take place in the real world, but may also take place hypothetically in counterfactual worlds if certain conditions are fulfilled. A fair amount of scientific work (e.g., in macro and microphysics) takes place in hypothetical situations, in which case the linguistic realization has form B. However, in our experience, the linguistic realization of conditionals is far richer, and it is only recently that grammar books have begun to include other tense combinations.

Conditionality may be explicit or implicit. Explicit conditionals, as mentioned above, are marked by if . . . then, together with the negative conditional unless. Lyons (1977, p. 493) has proposed the widening of the concept of conditionality to include temporal and causal relations, as well as defining rel-

132 M. Horsella and G. Sindermnn

ative clauses. Other subordinating conjunctions (e.g., when, in case, on condition that, assuming) would, then, introduce dependent conditional clauses. Van Dijk (1977, p. 67) suggests listing because, therefore, consequently, and while as conditional connectives. These markers may be facilitating-factors in the recognition and processing of conditionality (Horsella & Sindermann, 1986). Conditionality without explicit markers is often found in definitions that require the determination of certain conditions to delimit the scope of the definition in a rigorous manner. Incidentally, definitions are particular cases of conditional argumentation, as the validity of one of the terms necessarily implies the validity of the other. This is why definitions are called Conditionals or relations of reciprocal dependence.

What is, then, the relationship between argumentation and conditionality? In the 6rst place, logical argument has the form

P ... q

This is the classical argument called Modus Ponens. If we examine the argument we find that

establishes a relation of conditionality. This is read “if p then q.” But if we next state p (i.e., we assure that p is true), then we can state the conclusion q. Schematically:

p :. q.

Normally this second part is omitted and is implicit in the first part. When only the first part is present, confusion between argumentation and conditionality may result for the nonspecialist.

The Study

In the following sections we take passages from a larger corpus of highly valued texts in physics, economics, and medicine to examine conditional argumentation. We adhere quite closely to the procedure followed when we studied argumentative texts with the help of scientists (Horsella & Sindermann, 1989). The steps in the analysis are (a) a brief explanation of the propositional content, relevance of the information presented, and the historical situation that gave rise to the problem studied and its accepted explanation; (b) classification of the argumentation as deductive or inductive; (c) analysis of the semantic relation between the clauses of the conditional sentence to establish the strength of the relation as necessary and suflicient, necessary, sufficient, or probable; (d) detection of explicit or implicit markers of conditionality; (e) examination of the temporal relation between the clauses by paying attention to the verbal tenses used, and, Anally, (f) a presentation of the passages under the formal argumentation mode1 and under the mode1 proposed by Toulmin.


Sample 1 (Source: Textbook, Area: Physics)

A. If we drop a stone from a 20 m high building, assuming that the air resistance can be ignored, it will reach the ground in 2.02 seconds.

B. Lf a stone is dropped from a 20 m high building and we assume that air resistance can be ignored, how long does it take to reach the ground? (Newton, 1962)

1. As we can see, the passage can be given as an argument in A and as a problem in B. The passage is taken from a textbook on classical mechan- ics. Galileo observed this phenomenon, and later Newton developed a formula to calculate the distance or the time for any object falling from a height to the ground. The purpose of the author is to present a typical problem that requires the application of the law of universal gravitation. The law has been accepted by the scientific community because up to now no cases of contradictory evidence have been found.

2. The reasoning is deductive because the relations between the height (6) and the time (t) are universally established by scientific laws. In fact these relations are expressed in the well-known formula:

With the help of this formula, which is a conceptual condensation of the relations between the elements, it is possible to calculate the time taken by any object that is dropped from a height.

3. The semantic relation is sufficient and necessary. It is necessary because to calculate the time we need the distance and the constant, gravitational acceleration. It is sufficient because no other external elements are needed.

4. The passage contains the explicit marker of conditionality if; the second part then is omitted, but it is assumed.

5. The temporal relation is verbalized by the present tense in the conditional clause, and by the future in the result clause. This is a typical real conditional.

6. Formal argumentation in symbolic form:

If p4 --+ r -. P*9 :. r

P = a stone is dropped from a 20 m high building, m2

q = gravitational acceleration is 9.8 set , s = resistance of the air is ignored, r = the stone will reach the ground in 2.02 seconds.

134 M. HorseUa and G. Sindermann

The passage has the form of an argument because we have a set of premises from which a conclusion is derived.

Toulmin Model

Claim: The stone will reach the ground in 2.02 seconds. Grounds: (a) The height of the building is 20 m.

(b) The value of gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/se?. (c) The resistance of the air is ignored.

Backing: The calculation always gives the same result if the resistance of the air is ignored.

Rebuttals: None so far.

Sample 2 (Source: Textbook, Area: Physics)

If an object moves so that the only force acting on it is its weight, or force due to gravity, then the object is called a freely falling body. If 7” is the position vector and “m” the mass of the body, then using Newton’s second law the differential equation of motion is seen from equation 3 to be

dLr d2 m=z=mgordl;!= -g.

(Newton, 1962)

1. This text is interesting because the conditional argumentation is used to frame a definition that is a particular type of conditional. In a definition, the two elements of the definition (i.e., the object being defined and the conditions imposed to restrict the scope of the definition) are reciprocally dependent. This type of conditional is called a biconditional. Another aspect that needs to be borne in mind is that the verbal definition is reformulated as a differential equation of motion.

2. The reasoning is deductive as concerns the phenomenon of freefall because it is based on a very large number of observations that have given way to the development of the differential equation of motion. Other elements that need to be defined previously are the concept of weight force, mass, and motion.

3. The semantic relation is sufficient and necessary, which is typical of biconditionals .

4. The markers encountered are if. . . then in the two formulations of the definition.


5. The tenses found in the conditional relation are present active followed by present passive in the two formulations.

6. Formal argumentation

P-j q. p = an object moves so that the only force acting on it is its weight, q = the object is called a freely falling body.

Toulmin Model

Claim: The object is a freely falling body if the only force acting on it is its weight.

Grounds: The only force acting on it is its weight. Warrant: F = w (kg). Backing: Newton’s laws.

Sample 3 (Source: Textbook, Area: Economics)

Training Costs and Prospective Returns

Some jobs require more training than others. Consider first the case of full-time

education. Suppose job A needs one more year of education than job B. and that

everybody in job A earns the same, irrespective of age and will continue to do

so in the future. Likewise for job B. There are no tuition fees. Then people will

only be willing to supply themselves in job A if they are compensated for the

earnings (w,,) which they lose during their last year of education. If the capital

market is perfect, the compensation must be such that the present value of the

lifetime income a person can obtain in each occupation is the same. If he enters

occupation B. he is pard a (virtual) perpetuity of N I,,: if he enters occupation A,

he gets a perpetuity of LO,,, but starting one year later. So if the jobs are equally

pleasant and risky, he will only enter A if

PV (occupation A) 3 PV (occupation B)

where r is the interest rate. Assuming that everyone is equally capable of

training for A, people will move form B into A until the present values are

equalised. (Layard and Walters, 1978)

1. This text deals with training costs and prospective returns in the context of how education affects wage structure. It is a typical example of economic writing where events will happen if certain conditions are fulfilled. Argumentation develops through the analysis undertaken of each possible circumstance.

2. The text presents hypothetical cases of jobs A and B, and inductive reasoning will lead to the conclusion that there will be demand for job A.

3. The semantic relation is necessary.

136 M. Horsella and G. Sindexmann

4. There are explicit conditionality markers: suppose . . . - then; if. . . - (then) assuming that . . .

5. The verb tenses are present in the conditional clause, and future, modal verb, and present passive in t$e result clauses.

6. Formal argumentation in symbolic form:

PV (occupation A) 2 PV (occupation B)

Thus, WA 1 WB --,z- il+z i

Toulmin Model

PV = present value,

i 1 E:riation A, B = occupation B, i = interest.

Claim: People will prefer a job that requires more training if they are compensated in their earnings.

Grounds: (a) Job A needs one year more training than job B. (b) People will present themselves for job A if they earn more. (c) The capital market is perfect. (d) The lifetime income of job A is a perpetuity of wage A, and job B

a perpetuity of wage B. (e) Jobs A and B are equally pleasant and risky.

Warrant: PV (occupation A) 2 PV (occupation B)

Thus, WA 1 WB --.a- il+l i’

Backing: Evidence of wages and years of training of various professions.

Sample 4 (Source: Abstract, Area: Medicine)

2641. A randomized trial of progestogens in the primary treatment of endometrial carcinoma. Macdonald R. R., Thorogood J. and Mason M. K. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Clarendon Wig, General Intirmacy, Leeds LSPNSGBR-B.R.J. OBSTET. GY-NAECOL 1988 95/2 (X6-174)

A randomized trial was arranged in Yorkshire to assess whether progestogens would improve survival as part of the primary treatment of endometrial carcinoma. In conjunction with surgery and radiotherapy, a total of 429 patients was randomized on diagnosis in the progestogen or control group and treated locally according to an agreed protocol. All the patients are now more than 1 year after operation and over half are more than 5 years after operation. The projected overall 5-year survival rate is 76%, but contrary to expectation there is no statistically significant difference in survival between the patients treated with progestogens and the control group even after statistical adjustment for known prognostic factors. (Index Medicus, 1990)


1. This is an abstract of a longer paper. It is included here because even in this reduced form conditional argumentation can be perceived. The sub- ject is of interest in the improvement of survival of cancer patients. The method used in the study is typical of the medical sciences. The treatment is checked by means of a randomized control group and the results are subjected to statistical analysis.

2. The reasoning is inductive because it is based on the number of observations conducted. In some areas of medicine the hypothesis proposed (a conditional relation is implicit in hypotheses) is tentative because there is a great number of factors or variables that are difficult to control. Nor- mally the results are given in probabilistic form either by using modal expressions such as may or can, or by statistical indicators of weak (positive) correlations.

3. The strength of the conditional relation is weak and the result implied is only possible. If the relation was causal (i.e., necessary), the treatment would be in use everywhere. In fact, the null hypothesis has to be accepted on the face of the results.

4. The markers of conditionality are whether . . . would. Whether is an interesting instance because it implies if and ifnot, as is necessary when working with statistical hypothesis.

5. The tenses used can only be inferred, since the demands imposed on brevity are extreme in an abstract. “Whether progestons would improve survival” may be interpreted as “whether the administration of progestons . . . , ” and from this nominalization we may get the clause “if we admin- istered progestons they would . . . ” In this case we would have a hypothetical conditional.

Formal argumentation:

Toulmin Model

Claim: (If we administer) progestogens the survival of cancer patients will improve.

Grounds: Progestogens improve endometrial functions. Warrant: Certain hormones boost bodily functions. Backing: Male and female hormones are given as routine treatment.

Conclusions

We have shown that it is possible to apply the Toulmin model to analyse conditional argumentation in different areas and in different documents. The science specialist or student normally reasons in the manner presented as formal argumentation. This type of reasoning may not be quite familiar to the applied linguist or ESP teacher, but it can be seen that the two models pre-

138 M. Horsella and G. Sinderrnann

sented are conceptually similar, so it should be fairly easy for them to use the Toulmin model in order to follow the steps in the argumentation and to ensure the validity of the reasoning. Needless to say, the model would be highly effective in written and oral production.

Reasoning in argumentation is expected to be valid - that is, it should convince either by providing unequivocal proof or by obtaining consensual assent. This is what we have to look for in this type of discourse. We believe that the applied linguist and the ESP teacher can make a valuable contribution in bridging the gap between formal and natural argumentation. The two are necessary and even complementary, and an effort has to be made to under- stand them. We have tried to show that this is possible, though in the initial stages working with a specialist in science is essential.

Deductive argumentation is the tool of mathematical reasoning, but to en- gage the interest of the intended audience some elements of natural argumentation are necessary. In the social and medical sciences inductive argumentation is common, but auxiliary techniques such as statistics have to be used in an attempt to make the argumentation more valid. Some acquaintance with the two modes of reasoning is essential if we want to take part in the scientific undertaking.

From the point of view of the language elements used, conditionality is useful for establishing semantic links between the premises and the conclusion in an argument. The strength of this relation forms a cline from conditions that are sufficient and necessary to those that are merely probable, thus determining the degree of certainty of the conclusions reached. The linguistic markers of conditionality may be explicit or implicit. Explicit markers can be facilitating elements, whereas implicit conditionality may be attained only by a good grasp of the discipline and by language awareness developed in the English class. Conditionality is one of the ways in which restrictions are imposed on situations and problems. The construction of grammatical sentences and clauses within the sentence follows the classical types firesent . future and past . . . conditional, in addition to forms such as present. . . present and present. . modal. This information may be required by scientists and students who need to write reports or papers in English because grammar books may not present all the combinations found in scientific discourse, in particular the use of modal aux- iliaries and modal expressions.

This study is an attempt, on our part, to grasp conditional argumentation in scientific discourse. The application of the Toulrnin model is one possible for- malization of natural reasoning, and we believe that applying the model is the first step towards gaining an insight into ways of arguing in science.

Acknowledgment - This research was supported by D.T.I. grant S 3081/ 9212.

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.


Connor, W., &Johns, A. (in press). Research and teaching ofargumentation in the disciplines: Applying the Toulmin model.

HorseIIa, M., & Sindermann, G. (1986). Significant difficulties and simplifica- tion strategies in the reading of scientific discourse in English. Unpublished manuscript, Universidad de Chile, Departamento Tecnico de Investigacion- Departamento de Estudios Humanisticos (DTI-DEH).

HorseUa, M., & Sindermann, G. (1988). La frase relativa: iFactor facilitante o de difcultad en el dkcurso cientiftio? La Investigacidn en L2 (Vol. 6). VaI- paraiso, Chile: Universidad CaMIica.

HorseUa, M., & Sindermann, S. (1989). La condicionalidad en la argumentacidn de1 discurso cientihco. In The Proceedings of the 8th National Seminar of Research and Teaching of Linguistics (8” Seminario National de Investigation y Ensenanza de la Linguistica) Santiago, Chile.

Index medicus. (1990). Washington, DC: National Library of Medicine. Layard, P. R. G., & Wakers, A. A. (1978). Wage structure and human capital.

New York: McGraw HilI. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press. Mead, R., & Henderson, W. (1983). Conditional form and meaning in economic

texts. The ESP Journal, Newton, I. (1962). Mathematical principles of natural philosophy at his system

of the world (F. Cajori, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Pereknan, C., & Albrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhetorique. Traiti a2

l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Touknin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. Van Dijk, T. (1977). Text and context. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Maria Horsella holds an MA from the University of Birmingham, U.K. She is lecturer in ESP in the areas of engineering and medicine at the University of Chile and has pubEcations in national and international journals. Member of the editorial board of The ESPecialist, Brazil. Founder of the Chilean Association of ESP Teachers and its first president. Member of the Chilean Society of Linguistics. Organizer of several National ESP Seminars and the 2nd Latin American ESP Colloquium.

Gerda Sindemann, ESP lecturer at the Faculty of Physical and Mathe- matical Sciences, University of Chile, in the areas of engineering, economics, and administration. Co-author of textbooks in these fields and author of articles published in national and international journals. Founder and first vice-president of the Chilean Association of ESP Teachers. Member of organizing committees and guest lecturer in ESP seminars. Member of the Chilean Society of Lin- guistics .

Download - Aspects of scientific discourse: Conditional argumentation

Top Related