Content uploaded by Mehmet Ali Uzelgun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mehmet Ali Uzelgun on May 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
1"
IMPORTANT NOTICE: THIS IS THE AUTHOR’S VERSION.
PLEASE REFER TO THE PUBLISHED VERSION OF THE
ARTICLE IN DISCOURSE STUDIES, DOI: 10.1177/1461445615578965
Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions:
An argumentative analysis *
Mehmet Ali Uzelgun **
Dima Mohammed
Marcin Lewiński
Paula Castro
Address of the first author:
Mehmet Ali Uzelgun
ArgLab -Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA)
Universidade Nova de Lisboa - New University of Lisbon
Avenida de Berna 26 -4º piso
1069-061 Lisbon /Portugal
Tlf.: +351 217908300 (ext. 1527)
Tlm.: +351 916428817
Email: uzelgun@fcsh.unl.pt
2"
Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions:
An argumentative analysis
Abstract
The goal of this study is to examine the argumentative functions of concessive yes,
but… constructions. Based on (N=22) interview transcripts, we examine the ways
environmental activists negotiate their agreements and disagreements over climate
change through yes, but… constructions. Starting from conversational analyses of such
concessive sequences, we develop an account grounded in argumentative discourse
analysis, notably pragma-dialectics. The analysis focuses on how in conceding
arguments speakers re-present others’ discourse, what types of criticism they exercise
through particular sequential patterns, and which argumentative techniques they
saliently use. We show in particular that, in disputing the standpoints supported by the
complex argumentation they encounter, speakers raise different types of criticism
(sufficiency, relevance, acceptability). We discuss how examining not only the
sequencing of agreements and disagreements, but also to the argumentative relations
that generate these, may extend our understanding of such concessive constructions.
Keywords: agreement prefaces, argumentation analysis, climate change, concession,
disagreement, dissociation, pragma-dialectics, relevance, sufficiency
3"
Introduction
An environmental activist responds in the following way to a video in which climate
“sceptics” contest the scientific consensus on the human causes of climate change:
[…] yes, it’s true, in the past years, of the past of the Earth, millions of years, there was many
many climate changes, but now we are provoking these climate changes. It’s us with our pollution,
so…
We are clearly in an argumentative situation here – a speaker addresses opposing
views and supports her own with reasons (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). One
explicit element of this argumentative discourse are linguistic markers or indicators –
prominently, the yes, but… construction. One may wonder, however, what exactly do
such elements mark or indicate? In other words, while the linguistic form yes, but… is
clearly present in this and many other argumentative exchanges, what are its functions?
Our goal in this paper is to investigate the argumentative functions of yes, but…
and similar constructions, extending the literature that has dealt with such concessive
patterns. Until now the predominant focus in conversation and discourse analyses that
have looked at yes, but… constructions has been on describing the sequential patterns of
agreement and disagreement (e.g. Antaki & Wetherell, 1999; Couper-Kuhlen &
Thompson, 2000), without taking full account of their argumentative functions. We
adopt the perspective of argumentation theory (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004) for
devising a theoretically grounded account of the functions of these concessive
constructions, arguing that a mere sequential analysis cannot adequately account for
these (see Jacobs & Jackson, 1989). We examine both the content and variability of the
arguments, exploring (1) whether the same sequential pattern (yes, but…) can be used
for conveying different types of argumentative criticism, e.g. sufficiency, relevance,
acceptability (Johnson & Blair, 1994); (2) whether variations of this sequential pattern
always convey different types of argumentative criticism; (3) what these concessive
constructions further indicate concerning the dialogical uses of argumentation (e.g. re-
presentation, dissociation); and (4) what functions these uses serve.
For that, we focus on exchanges from the climate change (CC) debate. The topic
and type of situation we analyse lend themselves particularly well to argumentative
analysis. CC is an ongoing debate with significant societal consequences, characterised
both by a series of controversies and by a fragile societal consensus on some aspects
(Hulme, 2009).
4"
The paper starts with a summary of the literature that focuses on the sequencing
of agreements and disagreements in concessive yes, but… constructions. We then
provide an overview of how these concessive constructions are treated in argumentation
theory. After presenting our corpus and methods, we follow with a detailed
argumentative analysis of some representative examples of yes, but… from the corpus.
Finally, we discuss two issues concerning re-signification emergent in our analysis:
dissociation and re-presentation of others’ discourse.
Sequential treatment of concessive constructions
Discourse and conversation analysts have long scrutinised the dialogical uses of yes,
but… and similar constructionsi. In her seminal study, Pomerantz (1984) treated but as a
marker that allows expressing conversationally dispreferred disagreements under the
conditions of the preference for agreement. The partial agreement signalled by the yes-
clause was seen to delay and soften the confrontational elements contained in the but-
clause. Much of the following literature has confirmed and extended Pomerantz’s
analyses (Mulkay, 1985; Billig, 1991; Antaki & Wetherell, 1999). For instance, Mulkay
(1985) and Billig (1991) have shown how initial expressions of agreement, or
agreement prefaces, are used for devising argumentation in a more agreeable way. The
initial agreement has also been examined as a device for mitigating the face-threatening
nature of confrontational, argumentative discourse in conversation (Czerwionka, 2012;
Holtgraves, 1997; Obeng, 1997; Rees-Miller, 2000; Sifianou, 2012).
Among the efforts to systematise the sequencing of agreements and disagreements
one may count Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson’s (2000) analysis of cardinal
concessives. In this concede-and-contrast sequence co-produced by two speakers, B’s
concession (X’) to A’s original proposition (X), is a version of A’s original point, which
nevertheless allows B to uphold her own contrasting proposition (Y).
Speaker: Structure: Symbolically:
A: Proposition X
B: Concession X’
Contrasting proposition Y
B’s sequence (X’-Y) can prototypically be realised through yes, but…
constructions. Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (2000) also discuss two important
derivations of the cardinal scheme. In the first derivation, the contrasting position (Y) is
not explicitly expressed, but only signalled by the – prosodic or semantic – way the
concession is made (X’ only implying Y). In the second derivation, which is well
5"
documented (e.g. Antaki & Wetherell, 1999; Lindström & Londen, 2013), the
contrasting position is expressed two times. Here, the concessive move comes only after
the utterance of a contrasting position – an initial disagreement (Y) – which is reprised
after the concessive move.
For Antaki and Wetherell (1999), this proposition-concession-reprise sequence
(Y-X’-Y’) is initiated by speaker B expressing her position, followed by a somewhat
disingenuous show concession, and concluded by reasserting her initial position. “It
makes a show of using a form which, ostensibly, is evidence that the speaker
appreciates the other side’s point of view, displaying to listeners that the speaker is not
wholly blind to others’ positions” (Antaki & Wetherell, 1999, p. 24). By contrast, “not
making a show of it [concession] tends towards making it sound like its ‘literal’,
dictionary definition of agreement and yielding” (p. 12). In other words, speakers can
either make concessions (X’) seriously, abandoning their position (Y), or just concede
to X “for show”, thereby being able to maintain Y.
However, Antaki and Wetherell (1999) also admit that the proposition-
concession-reprise structure “is the sort of device that might be particularly
advantageously used when the speaker is in an environment where being rational and
fairminded is at a premium” (p. 25). In our view, this suggests that arguers can make
genuine concessions (X’) while upholding their initial position, and “re-launch it as a
basis for further discussion and negotiation” (Lindström & Londen, 2013, p. 349). On
these grounds, Lindström and Londen have argued that “the practice of conceding and
reasserting does not limit itself to specific rhetoric purposes” and is a generally
available device that “enhances intersubjectivity in interaction” (p. 331). A similar point
is made by studies employing the approach of Social Representations (Castro & Batel,
2008; Mouro & Castro, 2012). These have emphasised how concessive constructions
are orientated towards negotiation, playing an important role in the re-signification and
hybridisation of conflicting meanings (Castro, 2012). This is achieved by distinguishing
what is considered acceptable at the level of the societal debate (expressed in the yes-
clause) from what is contested (in the but-clause) in the on-going interaction in which
arguments are privileged according to other, contextual, specificities (Mouro & Castro,
2012). Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (2000, p. 385) similarly observe that while in
general “X and Y are understood by participants as potentially contrasting”:
[T]he nature of the potential contrast in the third move [Y] is open, since people’s inferential
capabilities are open. That is, the exact way in which X and Y are understood by the participants
as contrasting is not definable in advance, but is interpreted and negotiated by the participants in
6"
the situated context. In some contexts, for example, Y is taken by the participants to directly
contrast with X, while in others Y may contrast with an inference from X, rather than X itself.
(Couper-Kuhlen & Thompson, 2000, p. 382)
This summary thus highlights that “the nature of the potential contrast” between
conceding (yes…) and (re)asserting (but…) remains somewhat obscure in the literature,
and reinforces the need to develop a better understanding of what exactly happens – in
terms of argumentation – between these two conversational units. Therefore, in the
following section we take the clarification of the argumentative relations between the
yes- and the but-clauses as our main task, and then focus on them in our analysis.
Argumentative functions of yes, but... constructions
From the perspective of argumentation theory, the first important clarification concerns
the relations between the concession (X’) and the contrasting proposition (Y). In her
extension of the work of Anscombre and Ducrot on the argumentative functions of but,
Snoeck Henkemans (1995) examines these relations at length. Consider the following
constructed dialogue, based on an example (“This restaurant is good, but expensive”)
discussed by Snoeck Henkemans (p. 284):
[Two friends discussing where to go for dinner]
A: It’s a good restaurant. (So let’s go there!)
B: Yes, it’s good, but expensive. (So let’s go somewhere else!)
In her utterance, B first accepts the good quality (X) of the restaurant, and then
introduces another concern – its expensiveness (Y). Following Anscombre and Ducrot,
but can be said to function here in the following way: (1) X counts as a possible
argument p for a possible conclusion R, (2) Y is presented as an argument q against this
conclusion, and, crucially, (3) q is presented as a more important argument for not-R
than p is for R. Hence, B’s utterance (p but q) can be seen as a defence of not-R. This
happens when speaker B admits that an argument p advanced in support of R is true or
acceptable, but does not justify R in the particular context, given that there is q.
In sum, through the yes-clause an arguer “accepts the propositional content of the
argument, but rejects its argumentative potential” in the but-clause (Snoeck Henkemans,
1995, p. 287), and can thus uphold her standpoint in that situation. The fact that the
argumentative potential of a proposition may be rejected brings to the fore what has so
far been overlooked in the analyses of concessive constructions: that speakers can
employ different types of argumentative criticism. According to one well-known
typology of criticism (Johnson & Blair, 1994), an arguer can reject the acceptability of
7"
an opponent’s argument (it’s not true), its sufficiency to justify the standpoint (it’s not
enough), or its relevance for supporting the standpoint (it doesn’t matter).
Furthermore, Snoeck Henkemans (1995) considers some variations of Anscombre
and Ducrot’s structure. Noticeably, after but an arguer can directly express the
conclusion not-R, instead of an argument q against R:
B: Yes, it’s good, but (still) I don’t think we should go there.
Another important variation regards the relative weights of p and q – instead of q
counting as weightier a reason than p, the two may count more or else equally:
B: Yes, it’s good, but expensive, so I don’t really know if to go there or not.
A second important clarification, from the perspective of argumentation theory,
concerns what actually is conceded in the affirmative yes-clause; i.e., the relationship
between A’s X and B’s X’, in Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson’s (2000) cardinal
concessive scheme. While each X’ involves some departure from X, the cases in which
the differences between the two are significant further complicate the analysis: What are
we to make of cases where a speaker concedes to a significantly different version of
someone else’s point? Is she conceding or is she not? Many conversation analysts take
pains to avoid passing normative judgements regarding the quality of the conceded
discourse (e.g. Antaki & Wetherell, 1999). Yet, when they speak of “Trojan Horse”
concessions making “a caricature description of the other side’s case” (1999, p. 17ff.),
they just stop short of calling it a fallacy.
Recent work on interpretation in dialogical argumentation (Lewiński, 2011, 2012;
Lewiński & Oswald, 2013) has examined the issue of re-presentation “of the other
side’s case”, with the aim of differentiating between acceptable and “caricature”
(fallacious, straw man) re-presentations. This task requires both a descriptive analysis of
pragmatic and rhetorical mechanisms behind re-presentations of others’ argumentation,
and a normative study of the violations of conditions for a reasonable argumentative
discussion. While this work acknowledges there are no “real” or “objective”
interpretations (Lewiński, 2012), it argues that there is a contextually plausible space for
interpreting disagreements and arguments.
Based on these insights, our specific goals in this paper are to examine:
(1) whether a certain sequential pattern (the cardinal yes, but…) is used for conveying a
certain type of argumentative criticism; i.e., sufficiency, relevance, acceptability;
(2) whether different sequential patterns (cardinal and proposition-concession-reprise)
are used for conveying different types of argumentative criticism;
8"
(3) what the concessive constructions indicate concerning the dialogical uses and
functions of argumentation (e.g. re-presentation of other’s discourse, dissociation);
(4) what these constructions accomplish for the arguers who exercise them.
Material and method
The research reported here is part of a larger study on communication of climate
change. For it, (N = 22) interviews were conducted between September 2011 and
February 2012 with experts and activists from environmental NGOs. All participants
had good command of English – the language of the interviews. Coming from different
countries (Portugal and Turkey) and backgrounds (natural and social sciences), but
working in similar institutional settings (e.g. BirdLife Partners, World Wildlife Fund,
Greenpeace), the interviewees were assumed to be actors in a global climate change
discourse and governance regime.
The interviews (mean duration = 75 minutes) consisted of three parts, and the
analysis reported here focuses on the third part, in which short video-excerpts were
presented – via a notebook computer – to the interviewees in order to instigate
argumentative episodes and foster debate. The first video-excerptii features two
“sceptic” scientists who contest the scientific consensus on the human causes of CC,
criticising the peer-reviewing process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The second video-excerptiii features a climate activist who contests the
utility of carbon offsetting – e.g. paying a small sum to “offset” one’s carbon emissions
when buying a plane ticket – arguing that such mechanisms targeting individual
consumers should not be used as a solution “against the threat of climate crisis”,
because our efforts should concentrate on “more profound systemic changes in the way
we organize our societies and economies”.
Open-ended questions were asked after presenting each video-excerpt, starting
always with “What do you think the person in the video is saying?”. The assumption
was that the “main argumentative opponents” of the interviewees were the persons
featured in the video-excerpt (i.e., “sceptic” scientists, a climate activist). The
interviewees were thus not directly involved in an interactive argumentative encounter,
and could argue against opponents’ points made in the video without having to manage
on-the-spot argumentative reactions (rebuttals, counter-arguments) and other aspects of
situated conversations (face-work, authority asymmetries, etc.). For these reasons, and
9"
in view of the goals of the study, all the interviews were transcribed without using a
detailed transcription system for spoken discourse (see O’Connell & Kowal, 2009).
In analysing the argumentative episodes, specific attention was paid to the
indicators of confrontation and concessions. At a first step, we identified the concessive
constructions in the corpus. Then, we distinguished between those constructions that (1)
comply with the cardinal concessive scheme, (2) involve a proposition-concession-
reprise structure and (3) cannot be classified into either of the above due to complex
argumentative moves and concessions accomplished.
At a further step, we employed the methods of argumentation theory for
examining how the sequencing of agreements and disagreements was accomplished.
This involved paying attention to what precisely was conceded to and criticised (i.e., the
content of “the standpoint”, “the argument”, or “the linking premise” connecting the
argument to the standpointiv). To do this, we reconstructed the arguments raised in the
video-excerptsv, and in the yes, but... sequences from our corpus, following the
procedures described in van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004).
We use the pragma-dialectical approach for three reasons. The first is grounded in our
data and the design of the study. Unlike in most studies in conversation and discourse
analysis, the interviewees were not primarily dealing with the complexities of ongoing
interaction with their opponent(s). This paves the way for argumentation to be a central
aspect in the tapestry of communicative functions (e.g. turn-taking, politeness). The second
reason relates to the nature of the object of study, the yes, but… constructions. As
mentioned, conversation analysts stress that these constructions work best when “being
rational and fairminded is at a premium” (Antaki & Wetherell, 1999, p. 25). A methodical
analysis of the (ideal) pragmatic conditions for “rational and fairminded” discussions lies at
the very core of pragma-dialectics. The third reason pertains to the theoretical and analytic
tools pragma-dialectics provides: Although focusing on the argumentative aspect of
discourse, it does so using broader insights from conversation and discourse analysis (see
esp. van Eemeren et al., 1993). It understands discourse as a “critical discussion” where
disagreements are managed through reasons, and offers pragmatically rich tools for
“reconstructing” natural discourse in terms of argumentative relations.
Using this argumentative approach, specific attention was then paid to the
relations between the concession and the criticism advanced in each sequence. More
than 10% of the identified sequences were reconstructed, compared and discussed by
the first three authors, and the discrepancies (about the main difference of opinion, the
role of the conceded argument in the opponent’s claim, the role of the argument
10"
criticised) were resolved, stabilising the analysis. Finally, we selected some of the
shorter excerpts that illustrate the potential contribution of the methods of
argumentation theory to the analysis of concessive constructions.
Analysis
We identified a total of N=139 concessive constructions in the corpus, organised, one
way or another, in the yes, but… form. More than half of these complied with the
cardinal concessive scheme, and about a quarter was embedded in a proposition-
concession-reprise structure. In 133 cases the disagreement was marked by a but (other
markers were however, even if and although). Agreement was marked in only 44 cases,
mostly by of course (N=16), and yes (N=13), but also by certainly, obviously, sure, ok,
maybe, I agree (utterances such as “We can understand that...” were not counted as
markers). The analysis starts with the second episode, where the utility of carbon offsets
is questioned.
Cardinal scheme 1: Sufficiency criticism
In the second episode, the climate activist featured in the video-excerpt (henceforth, the
activist) contests the utility of carbon offsetting mechanisms by drawing a contrast
between such consumer-based efforts and broader systemic changes argumentation (see
Appendix 2 for our reconstruction of the activist’s arguments). Our interviewees clearly
oriented to various elements of his complex argumentation by skilfully picking up
different points to concede and to refute.
Excerpt 1 – Interview 2
Ethically what he’s saying is true, but actually as when you consult, think about human
psychology, I think that you need to push people, eeeh.. well, not need to but, certain
mechanisms might be more effective in achieving the results, I would say...
The cardinal type of concession carried out here does not make explicit what is
conceded to, except for merely endorsing an ethical point in generic terms, and thereby
treating the view offered by the activist as a conventional one (Mouro & Castro, 2012):
Yes
(X’)
What he says is ethically true
But
(Y)
We actually need certain mechanisms to be more effective in achieving the results
In such cases, in order to make explicit the difference of opinion and what is
conceded to (X), the content of the but-clause (Y) becomes the primary source (Snoeck
11"
Henkemans, 1995). The interviewee’s position can be reconstructed as contrasting the
ethical standing of carbon offsetting to the effectiveness of those “mechanisms”:
Yes
But
(1) (Carbon offsetting should be used as a mechanism against the threat of climate crisis)
1.1a Carbon offsetting may be (criticised as) unethical
1.1b Offsetting mechanisms may be more effective in achieving the results
(1.1’) (The need to achieve results is more important than ethical considerations)
p
q
In order to understand how the concession works, it is important to identify what
can be conceded to as “ethical” in the activist’s argument. This can most plausibly be
the argument that carbon offsetting has been created to exploit the rising levels of
climate consciousness. However, and crucially, the interviewee does not make this
concession explicit. What is regarded as “ethically true” can also be the argument that
carbon offsetting makes people think that they don’t have to worry about the choices
they make (see Appendix 2). In other words, the concession is permitted to “float”,
giving the vagueness necessary for the continuation of an argumentative discourse
(Moscovici, 1994, p. 169; see Eisenberg, 2007), and for directing the talk towards the
argumentative interests of the interviewee (van Rees, 2006). This ambiguity makes the
concession look like it is made to all “what he says”, appropriating the activist’s critical
comments as commonplace and broadly acceptable.
In the but-clause, the interviewee then introduces the argument of effectiveness
(1.1b, let us call it q). By dissociating between what is ethical and what the actual
problematic circumstances require, the interviewee – having agreed that there are
legitimate ethical concerns – argues that under the given circumstances that we need to
achieve results, the concerns of effectiveness take precedence. Hence, the first example
of cardinal concessions can be summarised as:
Concession 1
A: p; if p then R; so R
B: Yes p but q (where q is more important than p), and since if q then not-R; so not-R
The conclusion of the interviewee’s argument (namely that carbon offsetting
should be used as a mechanism against the threat of climate crisis) is conveyed
indirectly by means of the counter-argument about effectiveness, which is presented as
an argument to be privileged under the concrete circumstances. This type of concessive
yes, but… construction, which was the most common in our corpus, works in the way
that Anscombre and Ducrot considered the prototypical argumentative function of but
(Snoeck Henkemans, 1995): a concession (yes, p) is overridden by a counter-argument
12"
(but q) that is presented as more important in the concrete situation. As a result, the
arguer (our interviewee) indirectly contradicts the standpoint (R) of the opponent (the
activist), by raising a sufficiency criticism. This criticism accepts p as a serious
argument in general, but denies that it is sufficient to justify R under given specific
circumstances. Hence, it does not expel the opponent’s argument from the debate, or
future instantiations of the debate (Castro & Batel, 2008).
Cardinal scheme 2: Relevance criticism
In the argumentative episode initiated by the “sceptic” scientists who contested the
scientific consensus on the human causes of CC, a key strategy employed by the
interviewees was to first admit the uncertainties, and then criticise the sceptics’ fixation
on certainty. This was carried out through concessions that are similar to the example
above in their sequential structure, but different in the type of criticism raised through
this structure.
Excerpt 2 – Interview 15
…[in order] to be sure, that the change in greenhouse effect, the gases caused this effect, you must
cause this effect and measure. You could not make trials with land, with earth. So you have the
probability, not... you have... you are not sure 100%. (…) So, I could not as a scientist say, as a
scientist, this is caused by that. As a scientist I could not, but as a politic, I must change the point
of view. (…) If it is plausible that this action of the man caused an effect that are irreversible, this
action could not, not must not, could not take place. The same for that, this is plausible, not sure,
but it’s plausible, that the gases… So, the politics must take action.
Let us first note that the cardinal concessive reconstructed below is recycled at the
end of the excerpt as embedded in a proposition-concession-reprise structure:
Yes
X’
As a scientist, I cannot say that the anthropogenic gases caused the change in the
greenhouse effect, you have a probability, you cannot be 100% sure
But
Y
As a political person, I must change the point of view; if this is plausible, politics must
take action
In this yes, but... construction, the interviewee does not directly address the
sceptics’ controversial position regarding the lack of consensus among the IPCC
scientists, but an inference from and a crucial assumption supporting it (see Appendix
1). Against what he discerns as the sceptics’ claims, the interviewee argues in the
following way:
Yes
1 Politics must take action regarding the change in the greenhouse effect
1.1a Scientifically, it is not possible to be sure that the anthropogenic gases
not-R
p
13"
But
cause the change in the greenhouse effect
1.1b It is plausible that human action causes an irreversible greenhouse effect
1.1’ If it is plausible that a human action causes an irreversible effect, politics
must take action to not let that effect take place
q
if q,
not-R
In the yes-clause, positioning himself as a scientist, the interviewee concedes that
there is only a probability – and not certainty – regarding the human causes of CC. In
the but-clause, taking the role of a political person, he raises criticism by drawing on the
plausibility of the causal relation and its action implications. It is this move from
probability to plausibility – and the accompanying shift from theoretical to practical
reasoning – that makes this indirect disagreement compelling. This “identity shift”
(Castro & Batel, 2008) makes it possible to rhetorically re-signify what is conceded to.
Through this concession, the interviewee not only demonstrates that he is as
fastidious as the “sceptic” scientists, but also maintains that the particular case of CC
does not lend itself to the approach of experimental verification. In the but-clause, we
have a reformulation of the concession (1.1b) and an explicit linking premise (1.1’). The
latter replaces the linking premise of the argument used by the “sceptic” scientist (that
scientific consensus is a necessary condition for taking action about CC) and renders
irrelevant the need for scientific consensus. In a way, the interviewee argues that what
we need is a consideration of practical consequences, rather than a sweeping
experimental demonstration or theoretical certainty. His concession can be represented
as follows:
Concession 2
A: p; (if p then R); so R
B: Yes p but not-(if p then R); so not-R
It is worth noting that this concession is carried out by significantly re-interpreting
the arguments conveyed in the video-excerpt. This is a major complication encountered
in analysing the concessive constructions, to which we will return below.
Cardinal scheme 3: Acceptability criticism
Not in all analysed cases did the conceding argument involve an undivided acceptance
of the argument presented by the opponent. In the excerpt below, the interviewee
accepts only partly the opponent’s argument.
Excerpt 3 – Interview 12
(…) in his opinion, what should happen would be systemic change, so we have to change the way
our society is organized. And he thinks that personal action, individual actions contribute not that
14"
much to- to... offset the problem. And I can agree with him that the fundamental changes have to
be made on a very big scale, but I would not diminish the role or importance of individual
responsibility and how individuals can themselves try to offset. (…) In the beginning of the video
he says that the offsets are just, just an issue of peace of mind, that’s not true. Because an offset
can actually be an offset, even if it’s just a percentage of the emission you are responsible for. If
you put a tree in a place that didn’t have any tree you are contributing a little bit, for a little bit of
carbon to be captured in the next years.
In the first part of this excerpt, the interviewee recapitulates the two major points
made by the activist: “what should happen would be systemic change” and “individual
actions do not contribute much to offset the problem”. In doing that, he re-presents the
activist’s argument as follows (the argumentation is marked by the letter O to indicate that
this is a re-representation by the interviewee of his Opponent’s position):
(O1) (Carbon offsetting should not be used as a mechanism against the threat of climate
crisis)
O1.1a Systemic change is needed in response to the climate crisis
(O1.1b) (Individual actions are not what is needed in response to the climate crisis)
O1.1b.1 Individual actions do not contribute much to offset the problem
R
(p1)
(p2)
(p3)
He then concedes to the first of these (O1.1a, p1), and challenges the second
(O1.1b, p2), by constructing a yes, but… sequence of the cardinal type:
Yes
(X’)
I can agree that fundamental changes have to be made on a very big scale
But
(Y)
I would not diminish the role or importance of individual responsibility and how
individuals can themselves try to offset
Here, the interviewee concedes to the necessity of big scale (systemic) changes,
but disagrees with his opponent’s main position against the use of carbon offsetting as a
mechanism to encounter the threat of climate crisis:
Yes
But
(1) (Carbon offsetting should be used as a mechanism against the threat of climate crisis)
1.1a Fundamental changes on a very big scale are necessary
1.1b Individual offsetting actions are as necessary
not-R
p1’
p2
Once again, a crucial complication in analysing this concessive construction is
that the interviewee significantly re-interprets the activist’s argument: The activist
claims that carbon offsetting should not be used as a mechanism against the threat of
climate crisis since “what really needs to happen” are “the bigger systemic changes”
(see Appendix 1). The interviewee first re-presents what the activist says: “in his
opinion, what should happen would be systemic change”. Then, he goes on to “agree
15"
with him that the fundamental changes have to be made on a very big scale” (note that
for the activist, this is an argument that supports his standpoint, R). Yet, he finishes by
contradicting the activist’s standpoint: “but I would not diminish the role or importance
of... how individuals can themselves try to offset”.
The crucial discursive task lies here in negotiating the meaning of the phrase that
a systemic change is “what really needs to happen” or “what should happen”. The
activist is clearly defending that “what really needs to happen” – systemic changes –
should be our primary and only concern’, and we should exclude distracting measures
such as individual carbon offsets. Our interviewee takes this to instead signify an
important, but not only concern – individual actions are then complementary with it.
This shift of meaning from exclusivity to complementarity of “what needs to happen”
makes possible both the concession (X’) and the opposition (Y). Taking the
argumentative aspect of the concession into account, the concession can be represented
as follows:
Concession 3
A: p1; p2; (if p1 & p2 then R); so R
B: Yes p1 but not-p2; so not-R
This concession is quite typical of the concessions carried out in the second
argumentative episode. In it, the interviewee concedes to one part of the activist’s
argumentation but rejects another part of it, making the argumentation as a whole
unacceptable. While the yes-clause accepts some of the activist’s arguments, the but-
clause expresses an acceptability criticism to other arguments and thus justifies the
disagreement with the opponent’s standpoint on the basis of that criticism.
Such examination of argumentative relations gives us a good idea of the
similarities and differences between the concessions analysed. The three are similar in
their sequential organisation (they instantiate the cardinal concessive scheme) as well as
in the fact that they all involve agreement with an argument (yes, p) but not with its
conclusion (but not R). They are different, however, in the basis on which the
disagreement is justified. In the first concession, interviewee 2 introduced a counter-
consideration that is an example of sufficiency criticisms: yes, his argument is
acceptable but not sufficient to justify the standpoint. In the second concession,
interviewee 15 instead rejected the relevance of the conceded argument to the
standpoint (not (if p then R)). This is an elaborate example of relevance criticisms: yes,
they are right but it does not really matter here. In the third concession, by
distinguishing between the acceptable and unacceptable parts of the opponent’s
16"
argument, interviewee 12 rejected the standpoint on the basis of the unacceptable
argument (yes, p1, but not-p2). This is an example for acceptability criticisms, which can
only be raised against a part of the encountered argument in the context of yes, but…
constructions (the yes-clause indicates that argumentation is partly acceptable). The
concessions are thus embedded in different types of criticism and their analysis
demonstrates the importance of taking the content of arguments into account for
understanding their functions (Johnson & Blair, 1994; Snoeck Henkemans, 1992).
Proposition-Concession-Reprise structure: Different argumentative relations?
Interviewee 12 in excerpt 3 above resorts to a further concession in the latter part of the
excerpt, regarding the argument of the activist that carbon offsets are sold merely as “a
peace of mind”. He first directly rejects it: “That’s not true” (not-R). His claim comes
right after: “An offset can actually be an offset” (R). The concession carried out
afterwards using an even if construction – similar to that of yes, but… in its sequencing
– can be structurally analysed as follows:
(Y)
An offset can actually be an offset (It’s a relevant contribution)
Even if
(X’)
It’s just a percentage of the emissions you are responsible for
(Y’)
If you put an additional tree, you are contributing to the carbon to be captured in the
next years
The concession in this example involves a proposition-concession-reprise
structure (Antaki & Wetherell, 1999). While it structurally differs from the foregoing
examples, a more careful look at the argumentative relations would clearly show that
this concession is embedded in a sufficiency criticism, just like concession 1.
The interviewee agrees that the contribution of an offset may be just a little bit of
what you are responsible for, and in reprise he disagrees with the activist’s argument
that you cannot neutralize your emissions once they’re out there. In relation to this
disagreement, the interviewee can be seen to argue that:
Yes
But
1 An offset can actually offset (neutralize) your emissions
1.1a Contribution of an offset may be just a percentage, a little bit of what you are
responsible for
1.1b An offset is an additional effort of capturing carbon
1.1’ If there is additionality, a contribution is made
Not-R
p
q
In the conceding argument 1.1a, the interviewee may be seen to render his
opponent’s case (see Appendix 2) as follows:
O1 You cannot neutralize your emissions once they’re out there.
R
17"
O1.1 The contribution of an offset is just a little bit, a percentage of what you are
responsible for
p
Through this rhetorical move, he transforms the activist’s argument against
neutralisation of one’s emissions into something that he can concede to (1.1a) and
criticise (1.1b). The latter involves a new consideration, namely the additionality of
possible contributions, which is presented as more important than what was conceded.
Hence, the interviewee’s concession functions as follows:
Concession 4
A: p; if p then R; R
B: Yes p but q (where p is more important than q); so not-R
From the argumentative perspective, such a concession is similar to the
concession made by interviewee 2, analysed above in excerpt 1. The interviewee
accepts an argument (p) but not its conclusion (R) because he brings about a counter-
argument (q) that is considered more important. The two are similar despite their
different sequential structures.
Discussion
We set out with the aim to investigate the argumentative functions of yes, but…
constructions used by participants in the controversial debates on CC. The scrutiny of
the material revealed that much of the discursive business carried out by our
interviewees belongs to the realm of managing disagreement. By resorting to yes, but…
constructions, they presented themselves as reasonable agents that fulfil their
“dialectical obligations” in an implicit critical discussion (van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 2004), (1) accepting what constitutes the possible common ground – the
function of the yes-clause; (2) justifying on what basis the contradiction with the
opponent is raised – the function of the but-clause.
These findings are not new. Antaki and Wetherell observe that such constructions
can be particularly advantageous in environments where being rational and fairminded
is important. Similarly, Lindström and Londen emphasize how yes, but... constructions
indicate “an orientation to reflexivity, reciprocity and compromise” (2013, p. 349).
However, rather than only mapping the sequences of agreement and disagreement, our
analysis focuses on the argumentative relations in contexts that pave the way to
“reflexivity, reciprocity and compromise”, showing that:
18"
1) Similar sequential structures can involve different types of argumentative criticism:
Concessions 1, 2 and 3 are all cases of the cardinal concessive scheme while conveying,
respectively, the sufficiency, the relevance, and the acceptability criticisms.
2) Different sequential structures can fulfil the same argumentative function, conveying
the same type of criticism: Concessions 1 and 4 differ in their sequential organisation,
yet they both undermine the sufficiency of the opponent’s argumentation.
We see these results as an important contribution to understanding the functions
of discursive devices such as yes, but…, and more generally, the management of
disagreement in terms of the underlying argumentative functions generating
conversational sequences and conventional speech acts. This has been a recurrent
question in a “normative pragmatic” approach to analysing argumentative discourse
(Jacobs & Jackson, 1989; van Eemeren at al., 1993).
Naturally the sequencing of agreements and disagreements is a necessary step for
analysing concessive constructions. Furthermore, as our analysis substantiated, the
initial signal of agreement is a rhetorical move that allows the arguers to anchor their
disagreements in matters of agreement, and render their viewpoints more agreeable
(Billig, 1991). However, especially in public controversies such as the one over CC, the
argumentative functions that govern these moves and structures are central to fully
understanding disagreement management and negotiation of positions.
Apart from the results discussed above, our analysis helps better understanding
two dialogical phenomena well examined in the argumentation literature, but not
directly in connection with yes, but… constructions: (1) dissociation and (2) re-
presentation of others’ discourse.
Dissociation is an argumentative technique of separating concepts into two
contrasting elements, one of which is considered more valuable (Perelman & Olbrechts-
Tyteca, 1969, p. 190)vi. This is achieved by relying on stock “philosophical pairs”, the
paradigmatic one being the “appearance vs. reality” pair: Yes, in a certain insignificant,
apparent aspect X is the case, but in reality it is Y (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969,
pp. 415-436). Since one element of the concept can be rejected, while the other is
asserted, dissociation serves as a device for resolving incompatibility. So understood,
dissociation was frequently used by our interviewees. As was exemplified in the first
and second excerpts, they employed the following pairs: ideal vs. actual, ethical vs.
effective, ethical vs. psychological, scientific vs. political, and theoretical vs. practical.
Such dissociations, in our view, signal that the speaker is restricted in denying a
given assertion straightforwardly. This may be related to the nature of the current
19"
consensus on the need for CC action. The consensus hinges upon a still fragile common
ground of “beliefs, assumptions, and values that are presumed to be shared” (van Rees,
2009, p. 114), having not yet stabilized as fully shared around the globe, or hegemonic
(Uzelgun & Castro, in press). In such debates maintained by many controversial claims,
a speaker striving to establish a new position may resort to dissociation “to evade or
pre-empt an accusation of inconsistency” (van Rees, 2009, p. 113).
We mentioned in a number of places above, that a critical complication in
analysing concessive structures is the relationship – more precisely the difference –
between what is originally said by one speaker (X) and what is then conceded to by
another (X’). When discussing “Trojan Horse” concessions as “caricature descriptions”
Antaki and Wetherell similarly bring up this concern:
Note that we don’t mean that there is a ‘real’, objectively different and truer description. (…)
When we say caricature, we mean to signal not a contrast with the ‘truth’ but rather that the
description is hearably marked in a certain direction; what is at issue (for analysts) is not the
reality of what is described but the interests the description serves. (Antaki & Wetherell, 1999, p.
18).
In short, when there is a significant, hearable difference between X and X’, we
cannot but admit there is a problem that a detailed analysis cannot overlook, whether we
call it a “caricature description”, a “Trojan Horse” or the “straw man fallacy”vii. The
cases we reported (Excerpts 2 and 3) were more subtle – we cannot easily depict these
as culpably straw-manning the activist. Yet, there surely was some kind of strategic
manoeuvring between what might be rhetorically advantageous to the arguers in the
given situation and what is reasonably acceptable by the rules of a dialectical discussion
(van Eemeren, 2010). Crucially, rather than relying on extreme case formulations – a
characteristic of caricature concessions (Antaki & Wetherell, 1999) and most straw man
fallacies (Lewiński, 2011) – the concessions we analysed relied on non-extreme case
formulations, and did not “cheapen” the case of the opponent. They were many times
used for transforming the opponent’s case into something that is generally reasonably
acceptable – simultaneously demonstrating that the arguer is not only aware but
considerate of those views – but not agreeable under the particular circumstances. In
any case, the subtle relations between what is originally stated and what is then
conceded open a fascinating area of investigation. The same can be said about yes,
but… constructions as linguistic vehicles for dissociation. The topic also warrants a
stand-alone investigation that can benefit from recent in-depth studies of dissociation
20"
within the pragma-dialectical framework by van Rees (2006, 2009) – a task for the
future.
Conclusion
This article demonstrates that paying systematic attention not only to the sequencing of
agreements and disagreements, but also to the relations between them, is helpful for a
more complete account of yes, but… constructions. Our analysis suggests that further
research into how people manage their disagreements in contexts of fragile consensus
and controversy may benefit from examining what precisely is conceded in the yes-
clause, on the types of criticism raised in the but-clause, and on the argumentative
manoeuvres achieved through these constructions.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
i This literature shows how the yes-clause can be expressed by a variety of markers (e.g. of course, I
agree, obviously, naturally, you know), as can the but-clause (e.g. nevertheless, however, whereas, still,
ii"Please see the video-excerpt, starting from 1’30” to 3’30” (duration: 2m00s), at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9Ev91jjQ8, and Appendix 1.
iii"Please see the video-excerpt, starting from the beginning to 02’20” (duration 2m20s), at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9Ev91jjQ8, and Appendix 2.
iv Our vocabulary follows the pragma-dialectical theory (van Eemeren, 2010). This does not exclude the
use of different terminology – for instance, Toulmin’s (1958) “claim”, “data” and “warrant”.
v"The reconstructions can be obtained from the authors."
vi Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (2000, p. 388ff.) use instead the term semantic partitioning.
vii Antaki and Wetherell (1999, p. 21) do use the term tu quoque – a well-known argumentative fallacy –
when discussing the “sting in the tail” concessions.
21"
References
Antaki C and Wetherell M (1999) Show concessions. Discourse Studies 1(1): 7-27.
Barth D (2000) “that’s true, although not really, but still”: Expressing concession in
spoken English. In E. Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition,
Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp. 412-437). Berlin:
Mouton de Gruyter.
Billig M (1991) Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology. London: Sage.
Castro P (2012) Legal innovation for social change: Exploring change and resistance to
different types of sustainability laws. Political Psychology 33(1): 105-121.
Castro P and Batel S (2008) Social representation, change and resistance: On the
difficulties of generalizing new norms. Culture and Psychology 14(4): 475–497.
Couper-Kuhlen E and Thompson SA (2000) Concessive patterns in conversation. In E.
Couper-Kuhlen & B. Kortmann (Eds.), Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast:
Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives (pp. 381-410). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Czerwionka L (2012) Mitigation: The combined effects of imposition and certitude.
Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1163-1182.
Eisenberg EM (2007) Strategic Ambiguities: Essays on Communication, Organization,
and Identity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Holtgraves T (1997) Yes, but... Positive politeness in conversation arguments. Journal
of Language and Social Psychology 16: 222-239.
Hulme M (2009) Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jacobs S and Jackson S (1989) Building a model of conversational argument. In B.
Derwin et al. (Eds.) Rethinking Communication (pp. 153-171). Newbury Park: Sage.
Johnson RH and Blair JA (1994) Logical self-defense, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kotthoff H (1993) Disagreement and concession in disputes: On the context sensitivity
of preference structures. Language in Society 22: 193-216.
Lewiński M (2011) Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy
22"
evaluation. Argumentation 25: 469–497.
Lewiński M (2012) The paradox of charity. Informal Logic 32: 403-439.
Lewiński M and Oswald S (2013) When and how do we deal with straw men? A
normative and cognitive pragmatic account Journal of Pragmatics 59: 164-177.
Lindström JK and Londen A (2013) Concession and reassertion: On a dialogic
discourse pattern in conversation. Text and Talk 33: 331-352.
Moscovici S (1994) Social representations and pragmatic communication. Social
Science Information 33(2): 163-177.
Mouro C and Castro P (2012) Cognitive polyphasia in the reception of legal innovations
for biodiversity conservation. Papers on Social Representations 21(1): 1-21.
Mulkay M (1985) Agreement and disagreement in conversations and letters. Text 5:
201-227.
Obeng SG (1997) Communication strategies: Persuasion and politeness in Akan judicial
discourse. Text 17: 25-51.
O’Connell DC and Kowal S (2009) Transcription systems for spoken discourse. In S.
D’hondt, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction (pp.
240-254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perelman C and Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric: A treatise on
argumentation (transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver). Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press. (Original work published 1958.)
Pomerantz A (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of
preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.),
Structures of Social Action (pp. 57-101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rees-Miller J (2000) Power, severity, and context in disagreement. Journal of
Pragmatics 32: 1087-1111.
Sifianou M (2012) Disagreements, face and politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1554-
1564.
23"
Snoeck Henkemans AF (1992) Analysing complex argumentation: The reconstruction
of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion.
Amsterdam: SicSat.
Snoeck Henkemans AF (1995) 'But' as an indicator of counter-arguments and
concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen 84: 281-294.
Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Uzelgun, MA and Castro P (in press). Climate change in the mainstream Turkish press:
Coverage trends and meaning dimensions in the first attention cycle. Forthcoming in
Mass Communication and Society.
van Eemeren FH (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending
the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren FH and Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: The
pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Jackson S and Jacobs S (1993) Reconstructing
argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
van Rees MA (2006) Strategic maneuvering with dissociation. Argumentation 20: 473-
487.
van Rees MA (2009) Dissociation in argumentative discussions: A pragma-dialectical
perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
24"
Appendix 1
Video-excerpt 1: “UN and Global Warming” (Excerpt from a documentary by Michael
Durkin, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”) (UK, 2007).
Please see the video-excerpt, starting from 1’30” to 3’30” (duration: 2m00s), at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9Ev91jjQ8
(A1) (We should not take action to mitigate global warming)
A1.1 There is no consensus among scientists on the global warming issue
(A1.1’) (Scientific consensus is a necessary condition for taking action about global warming)
A1.1 IPCC assessment reports cannot establish a consensus among scientists on the global
warming issue
A1.1.1 The IPCC second and third assessment reports do not refer to the truly scientific
literature.. the literature by specialists in those fields
A1.1.1.1 There was a very disturbing corruption of the peer review process in these
reports
A1.1.1.1.1 The reports approved by contributing scientists were changed in
response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-
governmental organizations
A1.1.1.1.2 The IPCC officials have censored the comments of scientists in several
key sections
A1.1.1.1.2.1a Statements like “there is no clear evidence for attributing the
observed climate changes to man-made causes (i.e. the increase
in GHGs)” were deleted
A1.1.1.1.2.1b After deleting some statements, the IPCC said there was no
dishonesty or bias, and that uncertainties about the cause of
global warming had been included
A1.1.2 There are a number of scientists who don’t agree with this polemic, some of which
resigned from IPCC but their names are still kept on the IPCC author list
A1.2 I am one scientist and there are many that simply think that is not true that humans are
causing a catastrophic change to the climate system
R
(p1)
(p2)
(p3)
(p4)
(p5)
(p6)
(p7)
(p8)
(p9)
(p10)
25"
Appendix 2
Video-excerpt 2: “Carbon Offsets - A Peace Of Mind? (Kevin Smith)”
Please see the video-excerpt, starting from the beginning to 02’20” (duration 2m20s), at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk9Ev91jjQ8
(A1) (Carbon offsetting should not be used as a mechanism against the threat of climate crisis)
A1.1 Carbon offsets are fictitious commodities (i.e. they do not deliver what they promise – they
do not lead to the satisfaction of the goal)
A1.1.1 You cannot neutralize your emissions once they’re out there
A1.1.2 Carbon offsetting places all of the responsibility on individual consumers
(A1.1.2’) (without there being a more profound systemic change, individual choices cannot
offer an adequate solution to the threat of climate change)
A1.1.2’.1a Individual choices / personal lifestyles have a role to play in how we respond
to climate change
A1.1.2’.1b our choices as individuals are still very limited within the system that
organizes our societies and economies
(A1.1.2’.1b’) (if our choices as individuals are very limited within the system that
organizes our societies and economies then without there being a more profound
systemic change, individual choices cannot offer an adequate solution to the threat
of climate change)
A1.2 Carbon offsetting is a dangerous mechanism (i.e., it has serious negative consequences)
A1.2.1a It has been created to exploit the rising levels of climate consciousness
A1.2.1b It makes people think that they don’t have to worry about the choices they make
A1.2.1c It places all of the responsibility on individual consumers
A1.2.1d The more emphasis we put on individuals, the more we’re moving away from what
really needs to happen
A1.2.1d.1 What really needs to happen is people to come together in communities, to
create political pressure for the bigger systemic changes.
A1.2.1d.1.1 people coming together in communities, to create political pressure will
lead to bigger systemic changes
A1.2.1d.1.1’ Bigger systemic change (in the growth based model, reigning at the
corporate self-interest) is what needs to happen in response to the threat of
climate crisis
A1.2.1d.1.1’.1a Individual choices / personal lifestyles have a role to play in
how we respond to climate change
A1.2.1d.1.1’.1b our choices as individuals are still very limited within the
system that organizes our societies and economies
R
(p1)
(p2)
(p3)
(p4;
if p3, p1)
(p5)
(p6)
(if p6, p4)
(p7)
(p8)
(p9)
(p10)
(p11)
(p12)
(p13)
(p14;
if p13, p12)
(p15)
(p16)
26"
* This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [grant
numbers SFRH/BD/62102/2009, and FCSH/IFL – Pest-OE/FIL/UI0183/2013/Arglab-BI].
** Mehmet Ali Üzelgün currently works as a research associate at the ArgLab, Nova Institute of
Philosophy, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Having acquired a doctoral degree in Psychology, he
now works in the field of argumentation with a focus on public political controversies.
