LINGUIST List 22.550 Tue Feb 01 2011 Review: Discourse Analysis: Senderowicz (2010) Editor for this issue: Monica Macaulay <monicalinguistlist.org> This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly. Directory         1.     Pierre-Yves Modicom , Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind Message 1: Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind Date: 01-Feb-2011 From: Pierre-Yves Modicom <pymodicomlaposte.net> Subject: Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind E-mail this message to a friend Discuss this message Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/21/21-3211.html AUTHOR: Senderowicz, Yaron M. TITLE: Controversies and the Metaphysics of Mind SERIES TITLE: Controversies 8 PUBLISHER: John Benjamins Publishing Company YEAR: 2010 Pierre-Yves Modicom, Université Paris IV –Sorbonne / Ecole Normale Supérieure. INTRODUCTION The main aim of Senderowicz's book is to establish a pragmatic typology of controversies and of their contribution to the advancement of knowledge in their domain. The framework advocated here is supposed to take into account the dialogical structure of a controversy at a given time (synchronically), but also to describe the mechanism of scientific and epistemic progress (diachronically). This new framework is derived from Kant's examination of the ''antinomies of Pure Reason''. A second characteristic placing this work within the scope of Kant's philosophy is the topic chosen by Senderowicz, who does not study here the structure of controversies in general, but focuses on their role and specificity in the field of metaphysics, namely of contemporary analytical metaphysics of mind. Hence, the pragmatic study of controversies relevant for discourse analysis is intertwined with a more metatheoretical reflection on the epistemological status of metaphysics, as well as with an attempt to make the case for the concept of epistemic progress in this domain. The study is defined by Senderowicz himself as ''a modified Kantian account of metaphysics combined with issues pertaining to the pragmatics of controversies'' (p. 11). SUMMARY The first part of the book, entitled ''Outline of a theory of metaphysical controversies'', is devoted to presenting the framework Senderowicz proposes, its roots in the Kantian philosophy of knowledge and the specific concepts required for dealing with metaphysics in particular. In Chapter 1, after a brief summary of the Antithetic of Pure Reason and of the method used by Kant to describe and resolve metaphysical controversies by identifying and questioning the underlying presumptions of the positions at stake, Senderowicz modifies Kant's thesis on two crucial points: first, metaphysical and scientific (or logical) knowledge are now supposed to be in a continuum except for the kind of proof they require, so that secondly, progress is no longer excluded in this field, whereas Kant describes metaphysical controversies as a perpetual fight between the same positions throughout history. The pragmatic and discourse analytical framework itself is exposed in chapter 2. Controversies are defined as dialogues between ''metaphysical positions'' induced by ''intuitions'' which are later on said to ''motivate assertions that have propositional content'' (p. 60) without having a precise propositional content themselves. It seems that intuitions are not pragmatically or historically determined, therefore playing the role Kant assigns to metaphysical positions. The latter concept is used by Senderowicz to describe the competing assertions with their propositional content and polemical and pragmatic embeddedness. The major question for the shaping and the evolution of the controversy is namely whether the two contenders recognize their respective opponent's thesis as a ''relevant alternative'' or not. A relevant alternative is a position involved in a controversy which is accepted by the contenders as plausible and therefore as a thesis one has to address if one wishes to defend a credible competing position. Thus, choosing whether (and under which status) a position has to be addressed is now supposed to be the base of the ''epistemic relevance'' of controversies. Chapter three is devoted to the specificities of metaphysics, such as the role of intuitions, which have to cohere with science but are nevertheless different from scientific claims, because the needed evidence is to be provided by thought experiments and ideal cases rather than by empirical methods. More relevant for linguistics and discourse analysis is the typology of the ''conflicts of intuitions'' sketched by Senderowicz along the lines of the previous observations, from the refusal of one contender to qualify his opponent as a relevant alternative up to the Kantian case where a participant takes two antinomic positions into account at the same level and then has to make way for ''significant epistemic changes'' (p. 75). Other types are the reinterpretation of the examined ideal cases and the mere call for deeper explanations. In the scope of these attempts to resolve a controversy, especially when they involve at least the partial acceptance of the alternative and then an effort solve the problem positively, new hypotheses are often coined, which may then give birth to a new controversy embedded in the first one, creating what the author calls a ''chain of controversies''. Finally, Senderowicz gives his account of progress in metaphysics: ''Progress […] does not involve changes in the 'general acceptance' of a statement or a theory but rather […] in the general acceptance that a given proposition enjoys the status of a 'relevant alternative''' (p. 76). Relevant alternatives are said to ''effectively transform the horizon of real possibility'' (ibid.). Epistemic progress is thus defined as a matter of pragmatic status. Part 2 is devoted to a case study: the chain of controversy caused by Jackson's (1982) ''knowledge argument''. Chapter four presents the origins of this controversy in Kripke's criticism of the identity theory regarding rigid names (including states like pain) and their a posteriori descriptions or definitions, thus making the case for a kind of dualism. This idea was later defended, among others, by Jackson (1982) with his theory of ''epiphenomenal qualia'', dealing with ''the way it is to feel like other people'' when they know or feel things, which is supposed to be positive knowledge, yet epistemically irreducible to physical laws. Senderowicz highlights how the very text of Jackson itself is primarily motivated by controversial purposes and henceforth embedded in a dialogical context. Chapter five exposes two kinds of reaction to Jackson's position: Whereas Paul Churchland (1985) accepts addressing Jackson's theory as a relevant alternative but criticizes logical flaws in the argument and the evaluation of its consequences, Daniel Dennett (1991) does not enter a direct dialogue with Jackson but demonstratively turns to another audience (cognitive scientists) in order to undermine the status of Jackson's position. Chapter six is devoted to a new controversy within the scope of the first one: the polemic on the ''explanatory gap'' between epistemic and ontological knowability, a concept which emerged out of the ''two-dimensional semantics'' coined by David Chalmers to counter Churchland's criticism. Once again, the position is not recognized as a relevant alternative by its main opponents. Part three deals with the controversies regarding ''Personal identity and revisionary metaphysics''. In chapter seven, Senderowicz shows that the protagonists of this controversy within analytic philosophy did not primarily resort to the numerous works of previous philosophers on this highly disputed topic, but reactivated the old positions related to metaphysical intuitions principally out of the very frame of the controversy, be it the questions raised by some participants or the objections to their own previous theories. This controversy is all the more interesting because the participants do consider the positions of their contenders as relevant alternatives having to be addressed. The specific problem of erroneous remembrance or thought experiments involving brain transplantations are therefore addressed as relevant for the more general topic of the controversy and can be traced as common threads in whole chain of controversies explained in detail throughout Chapter 8. Chapter 9 focuses on the attempts to resolve the antinomy within the frame of so-called ''revisionary metaphysics.'' All those theories question the real significance of concepts used by both conflicting sides, including the notion of self-identity itself or the role accorded to a few thought experiments. This chapter closes with a Kant-like attempt by Wiggins (1980) to close the controversy by proposing consequent conceptual change and evaluating the relevance of common underlying presumptions of the previous contenders. EVALUATION This book undoubtedly represents a considerable attempt to develop tools for the history of philosophy and will probably be addressed as such by Senderowicz's fellow philosophers: for instance, the question of the link between such a theory of philosophical progress through conflicts of alternatives and the Hegelian dialectical framework would have deserved more than the mere 11 lines devoted to it on page 10. Moreover, the two case studies are also valuable introductions to modern analytic philosophy of mind and could be read as such by people wanting to discover this set of problems. Epistemologists working on controversies should also be interested in this general framework. But as Senderowicz brilliantly shows when addressing Daniel Dennett's response to Jackson, defending a position is also a question of choosing your audience, and it seems that this book is mainly concerned with philosophers, more than with linguists or discourse analysts, as suggested by the absence of entries such as ''audience'', ''dialogue'' or ''pragmatics'' in the index, although these concepts play a major role in Senderowicz's theory and would have been most appealing for many linguists. Such an editorial choice is quite surprising, since the book is published in Benjamins' series ''Controversies'', which is mainly devoted to argumentation theory in the pragma-dialectical framework that manifestly inspires Senderowicz. Yet, the pragmatic roots of the theory are not really put forward, except for more argumentation-theoretical works by Dascal (1998 and subsequent). This book is nevertheless of great interest for people involved in linguistic subfields such as pragmatics and discourse analysis, as it illustrates the vitality of argumentation theory and makes the case for more interdisciplinary work between philosophers, discourse and argumentation analysts and linguists. Indeed, the concept of relevant alternative advocated by Senderowicz should lead to more intensive discussion between argumentation theorists, linguists representing more traditional pragmatics, rhetoricians, and maybe also sociologists of science, since the question of whether a position is recognized as a relevant alternative in an academic dialogue is directly related to problems of strategic maneuvering in a dialogical context. For instance, a comparison with pragmatics (especially conversational analysis or even common ground management) regarding the role of contextual factors, underlying presumptions and background knowledge would probably be very fruitful. The question of the audience the contenders address is also crucial, especially when it is related to the process of constituting the metaphysical position, and would therefore deserve further analysis. As Senderowicz notices (p. 32), if intuitions might not be pragmatically biased, positions are constructed in the framework of a dialogue or of a controversy, i.e. they are embedded in a propositional and pragmatic context. The re-emergence of old schemes on identity and bodily continuity without any other cuing than the controversy in part 3 is an example for this embeddedness, which is perfectly illustrated in the study. Senderowicz presents the history of positions as ''a history of their status as relevant alternatives'' (p. 11); in other words as a problem of pragmatic acceptance in a conversational context, and claims on the other hand (following other work in the domain of pragma-dialectics) that one of the decisive ways to shift the burden of proof for the defender of a proposition is to highlight its pragmatic value, which Senderowicz defines as utility. Thus, explaining that ''the attribution of degrees of weight is inherently connected to the interest that one has in the controversy, that is, to what one believes to be important'' (p. 31), the author definitely insists upon the role of the image the speaker has of what his or her audience believes to be important. This decisive importance of taking into account what one supposes to be the stance of the audience is explicitly dealt with on p. 104, when discussing Dennett's contribution to the debate about the knowledge argument. In other words, the typology of the controversy itself, the attempts to resolve it and the positions used are all at least partially determined by the supposed shared knowledge and values, as well as by strategic maneuvering. That no specific chapter is devoted to this thread of topics, for which there is also no keyword in the index, might be quite frustrating for the reader, but through the frequent allusions and the very concept of ''relevant alternative'', Senderowicz already makes the case for a more audience-oriented approach compared with most of the studies collected in the important volume edited by van Eemeren and Garssen (2008), where the question of the audience is mostly latent, excepting the contribution by A. C. Regner. In a more general way, this study is a new demonstration of the advantages of pragmatic models for the structural study of discourse and argumentation, and will certainly deliver material for the discussion between pragma-dialectic and rhetorical approaches to controversies. The huge amount of possibilities opened by such frameworks and the precision of Senderowicz's in-depth case studies should encourage people interested in the study of controversies to follow this way and combine these tools with their own disciplinary background. Even though this book's original linguistic contribution beyond van Eemeren and Grootendorst's (2004) and the 2008 collection is restricted to a systematic definition of the concept of relevant alternative, it is nevertheless original and promising enough to be recommended as a very stimulating lecture and as a valuable attempt to bridge the gaps between several subfields and disciplines concerned with rational discourse. REFERENCES Churchland, Paul. 1985: Reduction, Qualia and the direct introspection of brain states. Journal of Philosophy 82 (1): 8-28 Dascal, Marcelo. 1998: Types of Polemics and types of polemical moves; in Cmejrková, Svetla, Hoffmannová, Jana, Müllerová, Olga and Svetlá, Jindra (eds.): Dialogue Analysis VI (Proceedings of the 20th World Congress of Philosophy -- Philosophy of Science), Vol. 10, 159-192; Philadelphia: Philosophers Index Inc. Dennett, Daniel. 1991: Consciousness explained. London: Penguin. Jackson, Frank. 1982: Epiphenomenal Qualia. Philosophical Quarterly 32 (127): 127-136. van Eemeren, Frans H. & Grootendorst, Rob. 2004: A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Van Eemeren, Frans H. and Garssen, Bart (eds.). 2008: Controversy and Confrontation. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing (=Controversies, 6) Wiggins, David. 1980: Sameness and Substance. Oxford: Blackwell. ABOUT THE REVIEWER Pierre-Yves Modicom is a graduate student in Paris. After a Bachelor in Germanic Studies from U. Paris-Sorbonne, he currently studies German and Philosophy at the Ecole Normale Supérieure and Linguistics at Paris-Sorbonne. Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue Page Updated: 01-Feb-2011       About LINGUIST    |   Contact Us       While the LINGUIST List makes every effort to ensure the linguistic relevance of sites listed on its pages, it cannot vouch for their contents.