Acceptance Research
Anton Vesper, M.A.
0 Introduction
It is shown how acceptance research is done
with the pragma-dialectical theory of
argumentation.
I Acceptance
Acceptance is the acceptance of a standpoint.
1 It is troublesome to conceive of
acceptance as an inner, mental state.
1.1 There are terminological problems with
phenomena of subjectivity.
1.2 There are problems to measure
phenomena of subjectivity.
2 Acceptance can be seen as the outcome of
a critical discussion about a standpoint.
2.1 The standpoint is advanced by the
protagonist P and doubted by the
antagonist A.
2.2 There are three (four) possible
outcomes of the critical discussion.
2.2.1 A accepts the standpoint (partly).
2.2.2 P rejects the standpoint (partly).
2.2.3 The discussion is settled.
II From standpoint to acceptance
Different types of standpoints are accepted
after a critical discussion in which
argumentation is used.
anton.vesper@gmx.de
THE PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL
ARGUMENTATION THEORY
In the pragma-dialectical argumentation
theory, argumentation is studied with a view
of critical evaluation. Starting from the
assumption that argumentative discourse is
part of a critical discussion aimed at resolving
a difference of opinion, a model has been
developed of the stages of the resolution
process and the various types of speech act
instrumental in each of these stages. The
model of a critical discussion serves both as a
heuristic tool in the process of analytic
reconstruction and as an evaluative tool in the
process of critical assessment.
In the pragma-dialectical theory the object of
argumentation is referred to by means of the
term standpoint. The pragma-dialectical
conception of a standpoint obeys the
metatheoretical principles of externalization,
functionalization, socialization, and
dialectification. Starting from the principle of
externalization, a standpoint is not conceived
of as a psychological attitude or mental state,
but as a verbally expressed position carrying
specific commitments and responsibilities.
Starting from the principle of
functionalization, not only the statement in
which a standpoint is expressed is subject of
analysis, but so is the communicative speech
act performed in advancing a standpoint.
Starting from the principle of socialization, a
standpoint is not just regarded as the
individual expression of a subjective opinion,
but as a public statement put forward by a
speaker for acceptance by a listener who is
initially assumed not to share the speakers
point of view, but is expected to do so in the
end. Starting from the principle of
dialectification, acceptance of a standpoint is
considered to be justified only when it turns
out to be resistant to criticisms put forward
by a reasonable judge in a regimented
procedure of pro and con discussion. Not
anything goes. (Houtlosser, 1998: Points of
View, pp. 388-389)
3 There are four meta-theoretical principles
to every move in a critical discussion.
(Advancing a standpoint is one of the
moves in a critical discussion.)
3.1 There is socialization.
3.1.1 Where do we encounter the move?
3.2 There is dialectification.
3.2.1 Which theoretical framework is used
to analyze the genesis of the move?
3.3 There is functionalization.
3.3.1 What action is required to create the
move?
3.4 There is externalization.
3.4.1 What does it mean for a speaker to
perform the move?
3.5 Acceptance: I accept your standpoint
obeys to the four principles.

3.5.1 Acceptance occurs in a public and
dialogical setting. (3.1)
3.5.2 Acceptance is analyzed within the
framework of critical discussion. (3.2)
3.5.3 Acceptance is the result from a
speech act. (3.3)
3.5.4 Acceptance results in a commitment
to the speech act of acceptance. (3.4)
3.5.4.1 The standpoint has been shown
to be acceptable, not true.
4 There are three types of standpoints.
4.1 There are normative standpoints.
4.2 There are descriptive standpoints.
4.3 There are evaluative standpoints.
4.4 The analyst should be aware of the
standpoint at issue.
4.5 Practice: Types and indicators of standpoints
III Argumentation as a determinant of
acceptance
There are three argument schemes and
pertaining critical questions.
5 Advancing argumentation obeys to the
four principles.
5.1 It occurs in a public and dialogical
setting. (3.1)
5.2 It is a speech act. (3.3)
5.3 The speech act results in the
commitment to the constellation of
reasons expressed. (3.4)
Acceptance Research
Anton Vesper, M.A.
anton.vesper@gmx.de
5.4 It is analyzed within the framework of
critical discussion. (3.2)
6 An argument scheme is the pragmatic link
between premise(s) and conclusion.
6.1 Causal argumentation
6.1.1 (1) Y is true of X. (standpoint)
(2) Because Z is true of X.
(3) And Z leads to Y.
6.1.1.1 Does X, in fact, lead to Y?
Could there be another cause for
the effect Y?
Does it require more causes
(X) to be present to effect Y?
6.1.2 Subtype: pragmatic argumentation
(1) X is good (bad)./ X is
(un)desirable. (standpoint)
(2) Because X leads to Y.
(3) And Y is (un)desirable.
6.1.2.1 Does X, in fact, lead to Y?
Is (not, if undesirable) X a
possible action?
Can Y be achieved (prevented) by
other means than X as well?
Additionally to X, are more cause
required (X, X) to achieve
(prevent) Y?
Is Y, in fact, (un)desirable?
Are there other goals conflicting
with Y?
Are there other consequences
from X than just Y? (sideeffects)
6.2 Analogy argumentation
6.2.1 (1) Y is true of X. (standpoint)
(2) Because Y is true of Z.
(3) And X is comparable to Z.
6.2.1.1 Are X and Z comparable?
Are there relevant differences
between X and Z?
Are there enough relevant
similarities between X and Z?
6.3 Symptomatic argumentation
6.3.1 (1) Y is true of X. (standpoint)
(2) Because Z is true of X.
(3) And Z is symptomatic of Y.
6.3.1.1 Are there other Ys without Z?
Are there other non-Ys with Z?
Does X need more characteristics
(Z) to be described as Y?
6.4 Practice: Determining argument schemes and
critical questions
I + II + III
Acceptance is (not) achieved by means of
arguing about the standpoint at issue.
IV Conclusion
7 There is no such thing as acceptance of
CCS.
7.1 What is acceptance? (cf. I)
7.2 Acceptance as acceptance of a
standpoint is unique to its critical
discussion. (cf. II + III)
8 Argumentation can be seen as one
determinant of acceptance.