AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION

CHRONICLE

VOL. 1, NO. 1

This is the first issue of a semi-annual newsletter published by the

department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and
Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. Its aim is to keep both
students and alumni of the master program Discourse and
Argumentation Studies Amsterdam (DASA), the research master
program Rhetoric, Argumentation and Philosophy (RAP), and the
PhD program Argumentation in Discourse (AD) informed about the
various academic and educational activities that take place in their
(former) department. It includes information on the latest
publications by members of the department as well as matters
pertaining to research advancements and student and alumni
activities. It is a forum created for those students and alumni who
wish to share their common concerns and insights relating to the
department in particular and to the study of argumentation and
discourse in general. As Chairman of the department I sincerely
hope that the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle will be
welcomed with great enthusiasm by all concerned.

Frans H. van Eemeren

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

In this issue

ISSA Conference 2006……………………………………………………………………..3

Thesis summary by Bilal Amjarso………………………………………………………3

Career story by Jenny Oliver…………………………………………………………….5

Reflections on the DASA Program by Geoffry Klinger…………………………6

Interview with Dr. Agnès van Rees…………………………………………………..7

Current impression about the MA program

by Grethe Thrane Johansen……………………………………………………………11

About the city of Amsterdam, and the Netherlands

by Lotta Weckström………………………………………………………………………12

Research MA degree RAP……………………………………………………………….13

MA degree DASA……………………………………………………………………………15

Research colloquium & guest lectures……………………………………………..16

Recent book publications of the department…………………………………….16

Announcements…………………………………………………………………………….17

2
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

Conference 2006: International Society for the Study of

Argumentation
(ISSA)
Since 1986 ISSA organizes every four years an international conference where
ISSA members and others interested in the study of argumentation meet. The
conferences attract a growing number of scholars from every part of the world,
representing all kinds of approaches to argumentation and a wide range of
academic disciplines: philosophy, (speech) communication, psychology, law,
linguistics, classical and modern rhetoric, formal and informal logic, critical
thinking, discourse analysis, pragmatics, and artificial intelligence. The
proceedings of the 1986 conference were published by Foris; Sic Sat published
the 1990, 1994,1998 and 2002 proceedings.

The sixth international conference on argumentation will be held

from June 27 to June 30, 2006. The members of the planning committee
of the conference are Frans H. van Eemeren (University of Amsterdam), J.
Anthony Blair (University of Windsor, Canada), and Charles A. Willard (University
of Louisville, USA).

Keynote speakers will be:

- Thomas Goodnight (Annenberg School for Communication, University of
Southern California)
- Trudy Govier (Galgary, Canada)
- Marcelo Dascal (University of Tel Aviv)

For additional information see our website: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa

Thesis summary

Product Promotion and Image Enhancement in Corporate

Advertising: A Pragma-dialectical Analysis of Monsanto’s
Corporate Advertisements
by Bilal Amjarso

Bilal Amjarso, from Morocco, is a student in the Research Master

program RAP. He graduated from DASA in March 2004.

The intention to write a thesis on corporate advertising stemmed

from my dual interest in corporate communications and the
study of argumentation. One important challenge for me, at the
very early stage, was finding a way to combine insights from the
two disciplines in an integrated study that could be classified as representing both
of them. A few months of reading about corporate advertising were necessary to
spot a niche in the corporate advertising literature: Corporate communications

3
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

scholars have studied corporate advertising only as a means by which companies

seek to persuade their audiences to change their attitudes about the company’s
image and products.
In my thesis, I argued that product promotion and image enhancement are
realised in a dialectical process that involves more than the use of persuasive
strategies. The environment in which corporate advertising operates nowadays is
one in which stakeholders’ interests and stakes clash and converge. This means
that a corporate advertising analyst should consider the audience as a participant
in this process—not just as a receiver whom the company manipulates through
persuasion.
In order to demonstrate the effectiveness of a dialectical perspective on
corporate advertising, I adopted the pragma-dialetical framework. This approach
views any argumentative text as being part of a critical discussion in which the
text producer contributes to resolving a difference of opinion. The approach also
posits that in actual critical discussions a discussant is equally concerned with
winning the discussion in his favour. For this purpose, he will make use of
different rhetorical strategies. However, bound by the commitments of a critical
discussion, a discussant will always keep, or rather pretend to keep, his wish of
winning the discussion under the control of these commitments. This he does
through strategic manoeuvring.
Viewing corporate advertising in this way allows us to examine more deeply
the way it functions. Corporate advertising is regarded as part of a critical
discussion in which the company advances standpoints and defends them with
arguments. An analysis that is based on this view is not concerned with the
extent to which corporate advertising succeeds in persuading the receivers to
change their attitudes, but in the extent to which it succeeds in acknowledging,
anticipating and counteracting the audience’s negative reactions. The pursuit of
the company’s rhetorical goals is, in fact, seen as the result of the balance
between the company’s commitments to the critical discussion and its desire to
win the audience’s compliance.
The advertisements that I analysed were released by Monsanto in the UK in
1998. Monsanto is a multinational GM food company. These advertisements were
a reaction to the tough opposition that GM products had received there. Through
the advertisements, the company aimed to promote its products and to assure its
commitment for human health and the environment. The existence of opposition
and an attempt at resolving it provided sufficient reason to construct the situation
in terms of a critical discussion involving Monsanto and the opposing public.
Through my analysis, I attempted to answer two main questions: In what way did
Monsanto’s corporate advertising represent the position of a participant in a
critical discussion? And how did Monsanto pursue its rhetorical aims in its
advertisements within that context?
In order to answer these questions, I first identified the different stakeholders
involved in the issue and reconstructed their standpoints in order to have a
critical discussion at hand. Relying on BBC’s extensive coverage of the issue, I
managed to draw the large lines of what seemed to have been the public’s
standpoint towards the commercialisation of GM food in the UK. It appeared that
public opinion generally held that (1) the commercialisation of GM food in the UK
should not take place (1.1.) because GM food was dangerous for the environment
and (1.2.) because it presented potential harm for human health. Monsanto’s
argumentation in its advertisements was to be analysed against the background
of this standpoint.
In order to examine Monsanto’s reaction, I had to reconstruct the
argumentative structure of each advertisement and unveil all the arguments that
Monsanto used in support of its standpoints. This analysis shed light on many
important issues. The advertisements never presented the company’s standpoints
explicitly, nor did they address the public’s anti-commercialisation standpoint

4
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

directly; instead, the company chose to defend issues such as why people should
opt for biotechnological rather than traditional farming methods. It also appeared
that many crucial arguments remained implicit in the advertisements and that the
arguments presented did not address the real threats of GM food. The analysis
also revealed that, in light of the model for a critical discussion, most of the
dialectical stages remained implicit.
The way the standpoints, the arguments and the dialectical stages were
presented in the advertisements had to be explained by analysing strategic
manoeuvring. For Monsanto, this meant the way it managed to maintain the
balance between its commitments to the other discussants, the general public,
and its rhetorical ambitions as a corporation aiming to promote its products and
enhance its image. In order for Monsanto to succeed in this, it had to be able to
promote its controversial products, while maintaining the image of a responsible
company. It was observed that Monsanto attempted to mitigate its difference of
opinion with its audience, either by means of indirect standpoints or by giving a
weak version of the dispute. The analysis also showed that the company tried to
make use of widely accepted truths in order to confer credibility on its claims.
Monsanto’s disclaimers at the end of its advertisements did imply that the
company could not resolve the GM dispute, although most of its advertisements
were concluded with a plea for raising trust in biotechnology. In general,
Monsanto’s advertisements, especially through the implicit arguments and
standpoints, were more inclined to promote the company’s products than to
enhance its image as a committed company.
By this summary, I have tried to give a general idea about what my thesis was
about. For the sake of concision many equally important points were left out.

Career Story by Jenny Oliver

It was a cold Monday in December of 2002 when I flew home to Chicago from
Amsterdam. I was exhausted from my thesis work and sad to leave my friends,
but also very pleased to possess an M.A. in Discourse and Argumentation
Studies. Upon returning home I did not know what to do with myself, so I spent
far too much time sleeping and watching appalling talk shows, like most recent
graduates. Fortunately, it wasn’t too long before I found a permanent job at a
non-profit cultural exchange organization where I facilitated study abroad
programs for Asian and European students who wanted to attend high school in
the U.S.
My DASA-learned communication skills were used on a daily basis as I
corresponded with international partners and domestic field staff to place foreign
students and monitor their academic progress. Reporting on student progress
was particularly challenging because I found that many parents adamantly
insisted that their child was a perfect angel; I had to use all my persuasive
powers to convince them that actually their faultless son or daughter was failing
math class, underage drinking or stealing Britney Spears CDs from Wal-Mart.
Although I enjoyed my work at the exchange organization, I have always
wanted to live on the east coast. I quit my job in August of this year and
promptly moved to Washington, DC, where an exciting city and unemployment
awaited me. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to put my DASA skills to work yet
here in the Capital, at least not professionally. But, my surplus of free time and
the prime political location lends itself well to closely following the U.S.
presidential election campaign. Armed with my DASA knowledge and up-to-the-
minute details on the election, I treat my new friends to unsolicited analyses of
each candidate’s argumentation tactics. I could (and sometimes do) complain for
hours about the number of fallacious statements made by the candidates. Bush

5
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

calls Kerry a Flip-Flopper (ad hominem attack) and Kerry retorts that Bush is a
Flip-Flopper too (tu quoque). Vice President Cheney argues that America will be
attacked again if Kerry is elected (appeal to fear), while Senator Edwards replies
that Bush caused the economic downturn because it took place after he came to
office (post hoc ergo propter hoc). As I write this, the presidential debates are
taking place and providing me with a multitude of material for my analyses
(“What! I can’t believe Mr. Bush is trying to falsely present that premise as an
acceptable starting point for this discussion! That is completely unreasonable!”).
For now, my interest in persuasive communications is satisfied by the current
political situation. But, what will become of me if I am still jobless after the
November 2nd elections? Perhaps there will be another tie, just like in 2000; it is
not outside the realm of possibility given the very close polls. If so, then rest
assured that I am busy analyzing who said what about the election results and
providing my insights to anyone who will listen. An electoral tie would mean that
flocks of lawyers would certainly become involved, providing me with all the more
rhetorical discourse to examine. There would be countless opportunities for my
amateur political punditry. Lawyers would be earning loads of money off an
election debacle; why couldn’t I?
Perhaps I am getting a bit ahead of myself. Just now, I received a phone call
from an international organization; they have offered me a position managing
their overseas internship program! It seems now that I will be gainfully employed
after the elections. What a relief! But what about Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry? Which
one of them will have a job after the elections? By the time you read this, we will
(hopefully) know.

XXX Marks the spot: Reflections on the DASA Program

by Geoffry Klinger

In the spring of 1992, I saw a call for graduate participation in a newly formed
program at the University of Amsterdam called “Discourse Analysis and Argument
Studies” (DASA, for short). Having fond memories of the Netherlands from my
days as a backpacking student while studying at the University of Essex as an
undergraduate, this announcement immediately caught my eye. Of course, it was
a pipe dream; I was in the middle of my own graduate studies at the University
of Iowa, and since there was no formal exchange program (it was Northwestern
who first fruitfully cultivated this kind of relationship), it would be exceedingly
difficult, not to mention prohibitively expensive (aside from forfeiting a teaching
assistantship), to take any time off.

But curiosity got the cat, and I explored further. I was drawn not only to the
place, but also by the people and the work that they did. As someone trained in
rhetoric and social theory, the Amsterdam approach to argumentation was
admittedly different from that with which I was familiar. But that was part of the
point, I think; I found it tremendously appealing and incredibly timely to begin to
think outside of the box, and consider the benefits of other perspectives. It was
an important and formative juncture in my graduate education.

My time in Amsterdam was filled with unexpected challenges and pleasures.

Burdened with a half a year’s worth of stuff, I struggled through Schiphol and
Central Station, only to be dropped off at the wrong place by my belligerent,
tattooed taxi driver (Spui is different from Spuistraat, I subsequently learned).
Fortunately, I followed the XXX to the right place, the office for international
education. That was the last taxi I ever took in Amsterdam. I quickly learned the
joys of the tram (and the concurrent fear of inspectors), and after procuring two-

6
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

wheeled transportation from a less than reputable source (I am not sure if Bart
Garssen and Peter Houtlosser have ever forgiven me!), and toilet paper from
HEMA, I was ready for my Amsterdam adventure.

I lived on the far East side of the city in a unique hospital near Flevopark. On one
side lived kind retired Dutch nationals, and the other side housed a group of
rowdy, but generally respectful students. It was an interesting and enlightening
mix. Just up the street from the hospital was the local watering hole, the Cruise
Inn, which housed a delightful assortment of American 50’s memorabilia, songs,
and a clientele as rockabilly as any I have ever seen in the United States. It was
simply an unusual and warming experience.

My academic experience was similarly fulfilling. Even understanding the European

educational system through earlier stints in Cambridge and Colchester, my time
at the University was not what I expected. What was most meaningful to me was
not formal course instruction in the DASA program, but the many opportunities
that blossomed as a result of my time in Amsterdam. I was able to take a course
in political science on “citizenship” in another program, and an interesting course
on fallacies in the DASA program that was taught by Canadian philosopher, Hans
Hansen. But it was my conversations with Eveline Feteris, Rob Grootendorst, and
John Woods that broadened my formal studies in meaningful ways. I had the
pleasure of getting to know many of the kind people in the DASA program, and it
is these people who are the true strength of the program.

My time in Amsterdam also provided me with the opportunity to do a lot of

independent reading and reflection that was a timely break from and supplement
to my graduate education at Iowa. I was able to read broadly and deeply many of
the things that I had been too busy to get to while teaching and taking classes.
There is simply no experience in this world like reading intellectually engaging
texts on a nice day in Vondelpark.

My time at the University of Amsterdam, in and outside the DASA program, was
perhaps the best experience in my life. Since those early days, now over ten
years ago, the DASA program, and the International Society for the Study of
Argumentation, has only grown in significance and stature. While my friends in
Amsterdam and I continue to work in different veins, I will always be grateful for
the memorable experiences and lifelong friendships.

Interview with Dr. Agnès van Rees

The story of a linguist who was converted into a dialectician

Dr. Agnès van Rees is a senior lecturer in the Department of Speech
Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric and director of the DASA
program. Among her specialisations are speech act theory, discourse analysis and
the analysis of argumentation in conversation. In a warm conversation with Bilal
Amjarso she talks about her work within the department. Excerpts:

Amjarso: Dr. Agnès van Rees, welcome to this interview. Before we start
talking about what you’ve been doing in this department, I would first
like to take you back some year in time and ask what you were doing and
where you were before you came to this department.

7
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

Van Rees: Well, that’s more than just some years. I came to this department in
1971, more than 33 years ago. I was a young person just graduated at the
University of Leiden. I had studied Dutch Language and Literature for four years,
and then I switched over to General Linguistics, with a minor of Psycholinguistics.
I spent three years studying that. You can see, at that time we studied seven
years instead of four years now. I had my Doctorandus title, the equivalent of the
Master. And I was thinking of what I would like to do, and I knew I would not
want to teach at a secondary school; that’s too difficult for me.

That’s the same choice I was about to make last year by the way.

And then I saw an advertisement here from the University of Amsterdam for new
personnel in the Speech Communication department, and, in my innocence, I
applied even though in my course of studies I never had had Speech
Communications, so I quickly borrowed some notebooks from the guy who, once
I had turned over to General Linguistics, started giving speech communication in
the Dutch department, and I quickly read through that, and so I went to my
interview and they took me.

I applied even though in my course

of studies I never had had Speech
Communications.

At the time when you joined this department, I am sure it was much
smaller than it is now.

No, it was not.

In terms of the number of people, I mean.

You mean in terms of faculty?

Faculty staff.

No, actually it was not. Let me see. Was it even larger than it is now? I have the
idea it might even have been a little bit larger than now. See, the faculty of this
department has changed over the years. The Speech Communication department
was installed at the University of Amsterdam in the fifties, after the Second World
War. And originally it was a department that was supposed to teach people to
speak better, to write better and to read better.

It was mainly rhetorical, you mean?

It was a skills department, teaching students skills. And it was not very
theoretical at the time. So at that time in the department there were people who
were there because they could teach skills very well, speech communication
skills. In the seventies, there were a few people who still are here, Frans van
Eemeren was there, Rob Grootendorst--of course he isn’t with us any more--was
there at the time.

When you came in.

Yes. When I came in. They had been there for something like one or two years.

8
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

And then there were a whole lot of people who are no longer with us, and that is
because they took a different direction in their interests and in their research.
During the seventies there was a lot of turmoil in the university and in the
department also: The discipline was evolving at that time, and so you got a lot of
strife between different conceptions of what the discipline should be, and so what
happened was a that number of people developed in a different direction and
they gradually left the department to do what they wanted to do elsewhere. So in
the meantime, the group that eventually stayed is the group that developed this
pragma-dialectical framework, but also had very explicit ideas about what an
academic curriculum should be, and how it should be taught. That group
attracted comparatively younger people: Francisca Snoek Henkemans, Eveline
Feteris, and Peter Houtlosser. Anyway, so gradually that group filled out again.
So basically, I wouldn’t say that we have either less or so many more people than
we used to have, we have a somewhat evolved group of people.

This department constitutes what is called the Amsterdam School of

Argumentation Studies.

That’s right.

How has this School strived to maintain an internationally reputed

status?

Well, because of the quality of the work obviously. Seriously, from quite an early
time on we saw the importance of international collaboration. I mean we learned
a lot from colleagues in other countries and we thought there could be a fruitful
exchange of insights with these various colleagues. From early on, Frans and Rob
went to conferences in America and later on the other members of the
department joined them and from that time on we also started publishing in
English, making our insights internationally available, and of course Rob and
Frans have edited various international journals and founded the journal of
Argumentation and created a international forum. Not to forget the ISSA
conferences, of course.

For the last couple of years, one trend has been affecting the University
of Amsterdam as a whole, which is what is called in Dutch
internationalisering.

We were very advanced in that.

That’s what I was going to ask you about. Exactly.

Yes. We were very advanced. In fact, we are one of the very early, maybe the
first program in the faculty of Humanities that went international. The DASA
program was started in 1991, and that was way before anybody in the faculty
thought of doing that.

When people come, they bring with them a diversity of perspectives and
insights. Are you not afraid that one day the central nucleus of this
department, namely the pragma-dialectical approach, will be lost and
some decentralisation will take place?

No. I am not afraid of that because people come here, to begin with, with an
interest in argumentation and with an interest in the perspectives that we bring
towards the study of that subject. So I think that the people who come are eager
to learn the approach, and they, of course, add to it their own thing, but that is

9
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

only within a very well defined theoretical framework. I mean we have a strong
theoretical framework, and that makes it possible to evolve coherently.

In fact, we are one of the very

early, maybe the first program
in the faculty of Humanities that
went international.

You have been talking about how the department has developed. Since
you came in, you must have developed intellectually as well. Can you just
give me an idea about the different research areas that have attracted
your attention since you joined this department?

Sure. Well, first I was very linguistically oriented, also having to do with the
teaching that I had to do. I had to jump in and start preparing stuff. The first
thing I got interested in was Sociolinguistics. I published something about
register at that time. At the same time, Frans, Rob, and I started a reading group
in which we read Searle’s work and discussed it. Of course, that’s one of the
influences on the work that Rob and Frans developed, pragma-dialectics. I got
very interested in that and I wrote my dissertation on questions within that
theory.

When was that by the way?

In 1982. So there was a switch from Sociolinguistics to Speech Act Theory. Then
at the same time I was not doing research in an Argumentation theory proper,
but kept very well informed about what was happening here. That is the nice
thing of working in such a close-knit group. But again because I had to teach
Conversation Analysis, I became interested in that aspect, and then I started
thinking about how Speech Act Theory and conversation analysis could be
integrated, keeping the best of both worlds, so to say. Then later in the nineties,
I started combining those two interests, Speech Act Theory-Conversation
Analysis, with Argumentation Theory because then I started to do research in
Problem-Solving Discussions, and then I could use all those background insights
in doing that. And then, during the last five years or so, evolving from that
interest in problem solving discussions, I started upon the topic of Dissociation,
which is used a lot in ordinary discussion. So here again, a combination of
interests in argumentation theory and linguistics and in ordinary language use
helps me.

What I specifically like though is

teaching foreign students, is
teaching in the DASA program
or the RAP program . I have
been doing that now for quite a
number of years, and I love
doing that because the students
come with a genuine interest in
what we have to tell them.

So you are, so to speak, a discourse analyst who has been converted in

to a dialectician.

10
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

Yes, although dialecticians here have to be discourse analysts as well because

they are not just dialecticians, but pragma-dialecticians.

This department is also a teaching department. I attended your class two

years ago, and to me there is no doubt that you succeed in making your
students enjoy the subject. How do you yourself find teaching?

Oh, I like it. I find it challenging. The strange thing is I still always, after 33
years, am a little bit nervous at the beginning of the semester, and I still find it
very challenging because you never know what happens and what questions
people may ask, and the questions that people ask force you to be as clear as
you can about your own thoughts, and that is inspiring. What I specifically like
though is teaching foreign students, is teaching in the DASA program or the RAP
program. I have been doing that now for quite a number of years, and I love
doing that because the students come with a genuine interest in what we have to
tell them.

They’re here just for that.

Yeah.

How do you foresee the future?

Oh, my! What I hope and expect and also foresee is that international teaching
and international research will grow, and I find that a very positive development.
I think that more and more the university world will become internationalised,
and of course our new PhD curriculum also will create an avenue for that, and I
hope and expect that we’ll grow in that respect, and I consider that to be a good
thing.

Well, I can only wish you good luck with that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much indeed.

Current impressions about the MA in Discourse and

Argumentation Studies and about being a student at the
department
By Grethe Thrane Johansen

Grethe Thrane Johansen from Nesseby, Norway, majored in English

at the University of Oslo and has also studied Ancient Greek, Latin,
Classical Civilization, Philosophy and West European Intellectual
history.

Why Discourse and Argumentation Studies?

When I studied English I had a course called Semantics and Pragmatics that I
was really interested in. I couldn’t find a university where I could specialise in this
discipline without becoming too involved in linguistics. After a while I came across
the MA program in Discourse and Argumentation Studies, which is an
interdisciplinary study and actually involves a bit of pragmatics, logic and
communication.

11
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

The program seemed very interesting and I wanted to do a one-year program

abroad.

Eventually I would like to have a job where I can rewrite or interpret texts.
Another option would be working within the field of communication or other
information work.

About the program in Discourse and Argumentation Studies

The discipline of Argumentation studies is unknown because it is not taught at
many universities. Before I came here it was hard to explain to other people what
exactly I was going to study. The classes we take are all mandatory. You can,
however, choose an elective, but I was advised not to because this is an intensive
program and I already have enough courses to follow. I have had several
tutorials which I found very useful. We have more contact with the professors
here than we do in Norway; they are all very helpful and are willing to make an
appointment with you if you feel like you need to discuss a certain subject. We
also have guest lectures and after that we all go out together which can stimulate
our wish to learn more.

Some classes we have together with the students of the Research MA in Logic,
Language and Argumentation. This can be an advantage because you can learn
more by listening to what they have to say, but on the other hand it can also be a
disadvantage as we might not be interested in the same topics.

About the Universiteit van Amsterdam

A positive thing is that there are not too many people attending the courses so
the professors always have time to answer your questions. Another thing is that
one theory of argumentation, the Pragma-Dialectic Theory, was developed at the
UvA, which means that you will get first hand information about it here. Finally,
the university arranges housing and this is extremely important as it impossible
to find anything on your own without having a contact network.

About the city of Amsterdam, and the Netherlands

By Lotta Weckström

Lotta Weckström, from Finland, who graduated from the

University of Turku from different disciplines with a degree in
Translation and Interpretation Studies, had already studied and
worked in various countries earlier on during her studies before
coming to Amsterdam. 'I wanted to study pragma- dialectics
and the department for Speech Communication, Argumentation
Theory and Rhetoric at the UvA is simply the best place in
Europe for this.' She enrolled in the research MA program in logic, language and
Argumentation. Although all classes are taught in English, Lotta thought it more
or less natural to try to learn the local language. 'But to my great surprise Dutch
wasn't as easy as I had expected. Because I speak other Germanic languages I
assumed to pick up Dutch in a couple of months. But one must really make an
effort to learn the language.

Before I came here I had the impression everything would be well-organised in

the Netherlands. Dutch mentality is different from Norwegian mentality; Dutch
people are more easy-going, they don’t make problems out of nothing.
Amsterdam is indeed an interesting city, the architecture is amazing. And it is not
raining as much as I thought before coming here!

12
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

This MA is meant for students who are motivated to study, because this program
is demanding. The program is a good choice for students who have a background
in Humanities or Social Sciences. The program is rather theoretical; therefore I
would say that this program is suitable for students who wish to carry on with a
PhD program.

What I enjoy about living in Amsterdam?

I find Amsterdam simply charming. It is a small city with a very metropolitan
flair, where most places can be reached by bike. The city has lovely parks, old
and new architecture, and various cultural events. Last but not least, I can
warmly recommend my faculty department to everyone interested in
argumentation as a social phenomenon. Students in our course came from
different disciplines, which made the year very interesting. You have to be
independent and active with regards to arranging your schedules and activities.
Unlike in many other countries your supervisor allows you a lot of freedom in
choosing courses and writing your thesis. The Research Master ‘s course are
suitable for students who know what they want to archieve and are willing to
work very hard at times to reach their goal.

Lotta’s advice for future students:

‘Join an activity offered by CREA (the UvA cultural organisation for students), it
is good opportunity to get to know Dutch students and learn the language, whilst
doing something fun!’

Research MA degree Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and

Philosophy
Program director: Prof F.H. van Eemeren

The Research MA program Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and

Philosophy (RAP) leads to an MA degree in Wijsbegeerte
(Philosophy), variant Logic, Language and Argumentation. The
program is organised by the School for Philosophy. The program
offers a solid theoretical and methodological foundation for
understanding the various ways in which ordinary language is
used in various types of discourse and texts to convince others.

The course provides not only systematic insight in the normative

and descriptive study of communication and argumentation, but also in the
philosophical conceptions of rationality and reasonableness that serve as their
starting points. Crucial concepts from rhetorical, dialectical as well as logical
approaches of the analysis, evaluation and production of argumentative discourse
are systematically discussed and reflected upon. In this endeavour, attention is
paid to relevant insights from speech act theory, Gricean analysis of rational
interaction, discourse analysis, and formal and informal logic. All major classical
and modern approaches of the reasonableness and rationality of institutionalised
and non-institutionalised types of discourse are considered, from juridical and
political discourse to spontaneous everyday conversations. At the same time the
students will be made familiar with the methods and techniques of qualitative and
quantitative empirical research in the fields of discourse analysis, argumentation

13
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

theory, (in)formal logic and rhetoric, so that they will be enabled to carry out
thorough and theoretically justified analyses, case studies and other types of
investigations of real-life discussions and texts.

The Program
The general curriculum consists of core courses, specific courses, electives or
tutorials and (the writing of) a research thesis. Depending on the specific
background of each individual student, and the qualifications the student has
already acquired, the program director will decide, after consulting the instructors
concerned, which (parts of) courses may be replaced by electives or tutorials.

The program for Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and Philosophy consists of the
following ingredients:

- 3 core courses (30 ECTS)

- 3 specific courses (30 ECTS)
- 3 electives: specific courses & tutorials (30 ECTS)
- 1 Research Master Thesis (30 ECTS)
- Research Colloquium (participation and presentation)

Student profile
The Research Master's degree program in Rhetoric, Argumentation and
Philosophy welcomes, after careful selection, students with a Bachelor degree or
equivalent in a field relevant to the program including (speech) communication,
philosophy, rhetoric, and language and communication. Admission, however, is
not necessarily limited to those coming from these fields.
Students with a Master's degree who wish to enter a Research Master's degree
program that is directly related to their intellectual background should, as a rule,
be able to complete the program in one year. They are invited to apply to the
admission committee, which will assess each candidate individually.

Career prospects
The Research Master's degree program in Rhetoric, Argumentation and
Philosophy will equip students with the insights, knowledge and skills necessary
for any academic or social career concerned with, or depending on, analytic
capabilities, critical thinking skills and rhetorical insights. The program provides
first of all a sound basis for PhD research in Rhetoric, Argumentation theory,
Philosophy of language and Cultural analysis. It offers at the same time a sound
basis for those professions in which critical analysis, sound evaluation and
sophisticated production of argumentative discourse play an important part.

Admission requirements
Bachelor’s degree (or equivalent) in a relevant field to the program such as
linguistics, (speech) communication, or philosophy.

Application deadline 2005-2006

Submit your application before 1 July (Dutch students) or 1 April
(international students).

See for more information: www.hum.uva.nl/graduateschool

Or
Graduate School for Humanities
Spuistraat 210, room 003
1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands

14
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

Phone: +31 20 525 4481

E-mail: graduateschool-fgw@uva.nl

Program coordinator: Prof F.H. van Eemeren

Phone: +31 20 525 47 11
E-mail: f.h.vaneemeren@uva.nl

MA degree Discourse and Argumentation

Studies
Program director: Dr. M.A. van Rees

The MA program Discourse and Argumentation Studies

Amsterdam leads to an MA degree Wijsbegeerte (Philosophy)
variant Discourse and Argumentation Studies, and the title
master of Arts (MA). The program is organised by the School for
Philosophy.

The program
A complete program will encompass between 60 and 90 ECTS
credits of academic work, depending on the student’s
qualifications. The actual number of course credits a student must obtain will be
determined by the Admissions Committee. Fulfilling all the requirements will take
between one and one and a half years. Given the unique character of this
program and its advanced level most students must expect to need more than
one year to fulfil all requirements.
To complete the program, all students must write a master’s thesis.

The following core courses are part of the program :

Argumentation Theory
Verbal Communication
Rhetorical and Dialectical Analysis
Fallacies
Methods and Techniques of Research in Discourse and Argumentation Studies

Student profile
The master’s program in Discourse and Argumentation Studies seeks students
with a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a field relevant to the program such as
linguistics, (speech) communication, or philosophy.

Career prospects
This master’s program will equip students with the skills and insights necessary
for any career concerned with the critical analysis, evaluation, and production of
argumentative discourse. This includes evaluating and commenting on texts (for
example as an MP’s or lawyer’s assistant), writing persuasive texts and policy
documents, and writing other people’s texts. The program also prepares students
for doing further research in the field.

Admission requirements
Bachelor’s degree ( or equivalent) in a field relevant to the program such as
linguistics, (speech) communication, or philosophy.

Application deadline 2005-2006

Submit your application before 1 July (Dutch students) or 1 April
(international students).

15
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

See for more information: www.hum.uva.nl/graduateschool

Or
Graduate School for Humanities
Spuistraat 210, room 003
1012 VT Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Phone: +31 20 525 4481
E-mail: graduateschool-fgw@uva.nl

Program coordinator: Dr M.A. van Rees

Phone: +31 20 525 4713
E-mail: m.a.vanrees@uva.nl

Research colloquium and guest lectures 2004-2005

Research Colloquium
-1 Oct: Jean Wagemans (Phd. Student) & Mike Hietanen (U. of Helsinki)
-15 Oct: H. José Plug & M. Agnes van Rees
-5 Nov: Daniel Vanderveken (U. du Québec à Trois-Rivières)
-26 Nov: Vesel Memedi (U. of Macedonia) & Justin Kalef (Portland State U.)
-10 Dec: Nele Nivelle (U. of Leuven) & Micheal Hoppmann (U. of Tübingen)
-18 Febr: Marija Snieckute (RMA) & Assimakis Tseronis (U. of Leiden)
-4 March: Albert Atkin (U. of Glasgow) & John Richardson (U. of Sheffield)
-18 March: Dima Mohammad (RMA) & David Chimovitz (RMA)
-1 April: Leah Polcar & Henrike Jansen (U. of Leiden)
-15 April: Corina Andone (RMA) & Bilal Amjarso (RMA)
-29 April: Peggy Graves (RMA) & Guarnizo Romero (RMA)
-13 Mei: Marjet de Ruyter (RMA) & Anna Avenariusova (RMA)
-27 May: Marjan Pijnenburg ( Phd. Student) & Peter Houtlosser
-3 June: Bart Garssen & Jan-Albert van Laar (U. of Groningen)

Guest lectures

- 22 October: Herbert Simons (Temple University)

- 3 December: Edda Weigand (U. of Münster)
- 25 February: Paul Chilton (U. of East-Anglia)
- 8 April: Christian Kock (U. of Copenhagen)
- 22 April: Ruth Wodak (U. of Lancaster)

Recent Book publications in the department of Speech

Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric
Eemeren, F.H. van (2001, Ed.). Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory.
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.

Eemeren, F.H. van (2002, Ed.). Advances in Pragma-Dialectics.

Amsterdam/Newport News, Virginia: Sic Sat/Vale Press.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst,R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2002).

Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.

16
Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 1, no. 1

Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002, Eds.). Dialectic and Rhetoric: The
Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2003,
Eds.). Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the
Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

Eemeren, F.H. van, Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2003,
Eds.). Anyone Who Has a View. Theoretical Contributions to the Study of
Argumentation. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Argumentation
Library.

Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst,R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of

Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge
University Press. (224 pp.)

Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2004, Eds.). Argumentation in Practice.

Amsterdam etc.: John Benjamins Publishers. [to appear]

Komlósi L.I., Houtlosser, P., & Leezenberg, M. (2003, Eds.), Communication and
Culture. Argumentative, Cognitive and Linguistic Perspectives. Amsterdam: Sic
Sat.

Announcements
LLA turns RAP

The name of the Research master Logic, Language and Argumentation (LLA) was
confusing and has now been changed into Rhetoric, Argumentation Theory and
Philosophy (RAP).

RAP accredited

The research master Rhetoric, Argumentation and Philosophy (RAP) acquired an

accreditation from the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Frans van Eemeren receives NCA Award

On the 13th of November 2004 Frans van Eemeren received a Distinguished

Scholarship Award from the National Communication Association (NCA) in
Chicago. NCA is a scholarly society and works to enhance the research, teaching,
and service produced by its members on topics of both intellectual and social
significance. This year they had their 90th annual convention.

Note to all AAC readers

We want to send this Chronicle to all the RAP and DASA alumni of the
department. If you happen to know e-mail addresses of fellow alumni, please
write to M.R. Denslagen: tar.secr-fgw@uva.nl.

17