The language of argumentation in Dutch.(Report)

In principle, all languages have their own ways of expressing the concepts that are pertinent to dealing with argumentation and discussion. Depending on the languages that are being compared there may be striking structural similarities but there can also be differences that point to diverging perspectives on argumentative discourse or certain aspects of it. Because I am a native speaker of Dutch who has become familiar with argumentative usage in English I have always been struck by some differences between the language of argumentation in Dutch (and other languages I know) and the language of argumentation in English that imply a difference in perception of argumentation that can have conceptual consequences pertinent to the theoretical treatment of argumentation. In this short essay I first go into Dutch usage and then point out some such differences between Dutch and English.

How do Dutch people let each other know that they disagree? What do they say when they want to resolve their difference of opinions by way of an argumentative discussion? In what way do they convey that they are convinced by each other's argumentation? How do they criticize each other's argumentative moves? Which words and expressions do they use in these endeavors? By answering these questions I shall provide a brief inventory of the language of argumentation in Dutch.

Like other languages, Dutch has a whole range of possibilities for expressing one's view of something, varying from 'mijn standpunt is' [it is my view that], 'volgens mij' [in my opinion], and 'ik vind dat' [I think that], to 'Dat klopt niet' [that is not correct]. Those who have doubts concerning someone else's standpoint, or even firmly disagree with it, do not need to be at a loss for words either. Their response can vary from 'Daar ben ik nog niet helemaal zeker van' [I am not yet entirely sure about that] to 'Dat ben ik totaal niet met je eens' [I do not agree with you on that at all], with a lot of other possibilities in between. People who prefer to express themselves in a somewhat formal way may say 'Dat waag ik toch wel ernstig te betwijfelen' [I venture to express my serious doubts about that]; people who profess to be relaxed might let us know that they 'er toch wel even een paar vraagtekens bij willen zetten' [would just like to add a few question marks to it]; whereas the response of no-nonsense people like you and me could be 'Wat is dat nou weer voor onzin?' [what kind of nonsense is that again?].

People who do not agree on something 'verschillen van mening' [have a difference of opinion], which can grow into a mutually recognized 'meningsverschil' [disagreement], and may become a 'controverse' [controversy] if the disagreement can not be resolved in due course. Some controversies end up in a 'conflict' [conflict], or even a 'vete' [feud], a deep disagreement between the 'partijen' [parties] that has become solidified and seems insolvable. In a great many cases, however, the parties in the disagreement will make an effort to 'uit de wereld helpen' [dissolve] their difference of opinion. They can do so through 'beslechting' [settlement] of their difference of opinon, if need be with the help of a 'derde' [third party], but they can also make an attempt to 'oplossen' [resolve] the difference of opinion by means of 'argumentatie' [argumentation]. In the simplest case resolving a difference of opinion means that either the party who doubted the 'aanvaardbaarheid' [acceptability] of the standpoint at issue comes to accept the standpoint because he or she has been 'overtuigd' [convinced] by the other party's argumentation, so that he or she decides to 'intrekken' ]withdraw] his or her doubt, or that the party who defended the standpoint 'zich neerlegt bij' [gives in to] the other party's criticisms and withdraws his or her standpoint. If the parties do not succeed in resolving their difference of opinion by means of argumentation, their discussion may result in a 'patstelling' [stalemate], with both parties maintaining their original positions.

In argumentative exchanges the parties 'brengen argumenten naar voren' [argue their case], 'beantwoorden' [respond to] each other's 'argumenten' [reasons that constitute the 'argumentatie'], 'voeren nieuwe argumenten aan' [bring in new reasons], et cetera. If it works out that way, now and then the parties may 'zichzelf tegenspreken' [contradict themselves], make use of arguments they know to be 'twijfelachtig' ]questionable] or even 'ondeugdelijk' [unsound]. They may slightly 'verdraaien' [distort] the other party's standpoint, thus creating a 'stroman' [straw man], try 'onder de bewijslast uit te komen' [to wriggle out of the burden of proof] for their own statements, the other party 'onder druk te zetten' [to put pressure on the other party] or 'persoonlijk aan te vallen' [to make a personal attack on them], 'een beroep te doen op autoriteiten wier gezag dubieus is' [to make appeals to dubious authorities], 'verkeerde vergelijkingen te maken' [to draw wrong analogies] or perpetrate 'ongeoorloofde generalisaties' [hasty generalizations].

Usually the parties will not accept each other's argumentation at face value but judge the quality of the argumentation for the standpoint. If a party is, for instance, of the opinion that the other party's argumentation is not 'deugdelijk' [sound] because it contains an 'argument' [reason] that has nothing to do with the standpoint it is supposed to support, this party can make this clear by saying 'Dat is totaal irrelevant' [that is completely irrelevant] or 'Dat doet niet ter zake' [that is not to the point], but also by uttering a straightforward 'Waar slaat dat nou weer op?' [what the beck is the meaning of this?]--the title of a popularizing Dutch book about the language of argumentation I co-authored in 1996 with Rob Grootendorst (Amsterdam/Antwerp: Contact). Proverbial alternatives known by all speakers of Dutch are 'Dat raakt kant noch wal' [that is all wrong], 'Dat slaat als een tang op een varken' ]there's no rhyme or reason to it] and 'Dat slaat als kut op dirk' [that's got f***-all to do with it]. As in all other cases I am dealing with in this essay, there are many more expressions pertaining to the same phenomenon--in this case a criticism of lacking pertinence in argumentation that was advanced.

Another kind of judgment that may be given is that the reasoning used in the argumentation 'niet klopt' [is not correct]. This judgment can mean that the reasoning is not considered 'geldig' [valid], but also that a reason put forward in the argumentation is for another reason not regarded to offer 'deugdelijke ondersteuning' [sound support] to the standpoint, or that ...