Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

1

THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE

ISSUE ON THE OCCASION OF FRANS VAN EEMEREN’S RETIREMENT VOL. 8, NO. 1, February 2012

Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of Amsterdam

Dear readers, In May 2011, Frans van Eemeren retired from the University of Amsterdam. Since then, he has been more busy than ever, giving lectures and keynote speeches all over the world, working on several publications and editing the journal Argumentation and the new journal Argumentation in Context. With this special issue, we would like to honour Frans van Eemeren. Included are an interview with Frans van Eemeren himself, and a number of speeches, some of which were presented during the official ceremony on the occasion of Frans’ retirement and others at the party afterwards. We hope that you will enjoy reading this issue! Kind regards, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans International Learned Institute for Argumentation Studies (ILIAS)

2

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

In this issue

Interview with Frans van Eemeren .…...………………..…...………………...……. 3 Frans van Eemeren and the Amsterdam School David Zarefsky ………………………….…..…...……………………..…………….. 4 A Career in Connecting Sally Jackson ………………………..……...…………………………….…………… 5 Never the Same Francisca Snoeck Henkemans …...………..………………….………………...…….6 A Greetings Telegram Erik Krabbe …………………………………..………………………………………..7 Pragma-Dialectical Glasses Assimakis Tseronis ………………..………………..……………………………….... 8 A Teacher and a Friend Bilal Amjarso …………………………………..……………………………………... 9 Slightly too Ambitious Constanza Ihnen …………………..……………….……………………………….... 10 Always Right Corina Andone ….………………………………..……………...…………………… 11 Consistency Dima Mohammed …………………………….…………………………………….... 12 Two Different People Marcin Lewinski …………………..……………….……………………………….... 12 UvA Boulevard Bart Garssen & Agnes van Rees ....…………………..…………..…………………....13 An Ideal Model for a Leisurely Retirement Nanon Labrie, Roosmaryn Pilgram, Lotte van Poppel & Renske Wierda ................. 15 A Statue Rudolf Geel ……………………………...…...……………………..……..………….. 17 Animal Typology Francisca Jungslager …………………….…...……………………..……..………….. 18

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

3

INTERVIEW WITH FRANS VAN EEMEREN

Frans van Eemeren is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. He presented his valedictory speech ‘In reasonableness’ on the occasion of his retirement on May 13, 2011.

What has changed for you since your retirement? I no longer go to my office on a daily basis and am no longer in charge of the Department. This means that I, nowadays, spend my time at home in my study and that the nature of the things I do has changed. Since I no longer have to lead a Department, I am also relieved from my administrative and bureaucratic burdens. Instead, I can fully concentrate on my research, the journal Argumentation and the journal Argumentation in Context and the accompanying book series. In addition, I still have the supervision of over some fourteen PhD students and I present keynote speeches and guest lectures all over the world. Do you miss working as a full professor at the university? I would have loved to continue my work at the university but I can also see that there should be a time when leading a Department has come to an end. Although I miss the daily contacts with my friends in the Department, I must say that I feel very happy working at home. I like talking about argumentation theory elsewhere in the world and explaining pragma-dialectics to interested students. Fortunately, I now have the chance to do so without having to compromise with my work at the university.

How do you look back on your valedictory speech and the celebration on the occasion of your retirement on May 13, 2011? Did you have any worries about the speech or the celebration? I am always a little worried when I have to give an important speech, if only because I wonder whether the audience will understand the gist of my message and will like my speech. In this case, I also wondered whether there would be a real audience because on such an occasion you never know who is going to show up. It goes without saying that I was agreeably surprised by the enormous turnout of colleagues, friends and students, both from the Netherlands and from elsewhere. The celebration was much more encompassing and prolonged that I had foreseen. I had, for example, no idea that there would be another festschrift and that my colleagues in Canada and the United States would also organize celebrations in my honour. In fact, I was overwhelmed by the kindness of the reactions to my retirement from the international community of argumentation theorists. What were the highlights for you? I think the highlights were the speeches and other performances in my honour by my friends, colleagues as well as students. Of course, it was an honour to receive the special medal of the University of Amsterdam from the President, but I was much more moved by the things my international and Dutch friends and colleagues did: the speeches by David Zarefsky, Sally Jackson, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and Eveline Feteris, and, later in Canada, by Tony Blair, and the satirical presentations by two groups of my PhD students. In the speeches that were held after your valedictory speech, many of your friends, colleagues and students said you were an example to them, almost like a role model. With respect to your own academic career, was there anyone who was a role model for you? No, not really. There were many authors I admired and some teachers I liked, but I cannot remember having been influenced by one of them in particular. I think that, next to reading, I learned most from working together with coauthors such as Rob Grootendorst and Peter Houtlosser.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

4 The full professor who replaces you still has to be appointed at the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric. What kind of person should, in your opinion, be appointed? I regret that our former Dean spoiled it when the appointment committee consisting of experienced scholars from various universities unanimously selected a very suitable candidate, but this is hard to repair. In my opinion, it would be best to appoint an outstanding argumentation scholar from outside the Department as my successor because this might give a new impetus to the research. It should be remembered that the research profile of the Department and the research performance of its members determines its international reputation. It goes without saying that teaching qualities and organisational and administrative skills are also important, but they are always secondary. If you were to give that new professor any advice, what would that be? Try to find new ways to energize the research group by developing a research programme that starts a new stage in the development of pragma-dialectics. Make sure that the Research Master’s and PhD programmes are developed further as well, utilizing all expertise available in the Department, and see to it that the Bachelor programmes and the other two Master’s programmes of the Department are stimulating to students and efficiently organized.

FRANS VAN EEMEREN AND THE AMSTERDAM SCHOOL David Zarefsky Dames en heren, goedemiddag. Dank u zeer. Ik ben hier om Frans van Eemeren te vereren. Ik ga verder in het Engels. Your English is undoubtedly better than my Dutch. Frans van Eemeren has had a long career at the University of Amsterdam, exceeding four decades. Those of us around the world who study argumentation associate each with the other. So, it is impossible for us to think of Frans without thinking of the

David Zarefsky is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Communication Studies at Northwestern University.

University of Amsterdam. And likewise, it is impossible to think of the University of Amsterdam without thinking of Frans van Eemeren. You all know some of the reasons that this is so. You know of Frans’ excellent teaching, particularly his mentoring of PhD students and his encouragement in the launching of their careers. You know of his long service as chair of the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory, and Rhetoric, and you know of his years as the founding dean of the Faculty of Humanities. But there is much more. Frans founded the International Society for the Study of Argumentation and organized its conference, held every four years, here. And so, while we sometimes speak of it by its acronym ‘ISSA’, we are equally likely to refer to it as ‘the Amsterdam conference’. Frans founded and edits the journal Argumentation, which among the journals in the field is often referred to as ‘the Amsterdam journal’. He has created and edited multiple book series, which are often identified as ‘the Amsterdam book series’.

5 But most prominently, Frans developed and has articulated the theory of pragmadialectics, as a coherent explanation of argumentation and as a solid research program. He has made it central to the work of his department. So much so, that colleagues around the world refer to the adherents to pragma-dialectics as ‘the Amsterdam school’. So, the University of Amsterdam has given Frans a strong and solid platform for his work, but equally so, Frans’ impressive achievements reflect positively on, and bring honor to, the University of Amsterdam. Of course, not just anybody could have done this. Even in this environment, this achievement required someone with Frans’ special talents and skills. He is, I dare say, the most prolific scholar of argumentation in the world. And this reflects both the fact that he has developed and articulated a rich theory and that he is committed to following it and applying it to ever wider ranges of human interaction. Frans has discovered and built a network of colleagues and compatriots around the world. Indeed, the ISSA conference is the most global, the most international, of any of the conferences within the field of argumentation – and there are many of them. This reflects Frans’ intellectual curiosity, his encouragement to scholars of many different perspectives, his ecumenical understanding, and the fact that he is so personable and collegial. Frans has placed argumentation at the center of studies of human communication and interaction. He has embraced and synthesized work from logic, dialectic, rhetoric, communication studies, linguistics, language pragmatics, and other disciplines that I have not mentioned. To do that, he has insisted upon a multiplicity of perspectives, and an exchange of what is often thought of as figure and what is often thought of as ground. Within the United States, for example, argumentation is often seen as a subset, a subfield of communication. Frans has reversed the hierarchy and has made communication a subfield of argumentation. This is not, as I first thought, an imperialistic move. Rather, it is a move that makes it possible for scholars in rhetoric

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

and communication to interact, as they otherwise would not, with scholars in logic, in dialectic, in education, in linguistics, and all of these other fields, around the common concern and the common interest in the study of argumentation. The University of Amsterdam has benefited greatly from having this fine intellect, this organizational leader, and this good man, on its masthead for these past four decades. So, an occasion like this is necessarily somewhat bittersweet. It is a difficult rite of passage for all concerned, but it has a very positive dimension. For if Frans no longer belongs to the University of Amsterdam in quite the same way that he has until now, even more so can we say that he belongs to the world. In this regard, colleagues around the world look forward to many years of Frans van Eemeren’s continued contributions and good fellowship. So, Frans, on behalf of your many colleagues, I welcome you to the ranks of emeriti and I hope you will enjoy that rank as much as we have, and do. I consider it the ultimate promotion. And may you enjoy many, many years as professor emeritus in health and in happiness. Congratulations!

A CAREER IN CONNECTING Sally Jackson I congratulate Professor van Eemeren on retirement after a brilliant career, but hope he does not imagine that he can give up the place he occupies in the international and interdisciplinary field of argumentation studies. The central theme of his voluminous body of work is reasonableness, and there is no one else who so completely deserves to be associated with reasonableness as a value and as a practice. But Frans’ importance to the field extends far beyond his own rich theoretical and empirical work. My remarks focus on his career as a connector, and on the intentionality and skill with which he created a field where none existed before. He has three very distinct styles of engagement with colleagues, each

6

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

perspectives to work on specific themes. I was very privileged to be part of one of these groups, working on Fallacies at NIAS in 19891990, during which time Scott Jacobs and I also became direct collaborators. But others participated by developing theoretical ideas that actually compete with pragma-dialectics to account for fallacies (or, in later projects, strategic maneuvering or other argumentative practices). Stimulating others with diverse views to work on similar problems enriches our understanding of reasonableness, creating competition among ideas that forces all to greater depth. This is why Frans cannot really retire. He connects us and holds this field together. Sally Jackson is Professor of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

important in building the field.  Sustained collaboration on a coherent body of theory. Through Frans’ cultivation of a large and energetic group of lifelong collaborators, pragma-dialectics has emerged as the dominant theoretical perspective on what it means to be reasonable.  Organization of the field. This last form of connection is not about any particular theory or any particular problem, but about a common interest in seeing that the many disciplines looking at aspects of reasonableness have opportunities to learn from one another. These connections do not involve co-authorship, but rather long-term alliances around the project of creating an authoritative literature base in argumentation. The first and most enduring of these alliancetype collaborations drew the American rhetorical scholar Charles Willard and the Canadian informal logician J. Anthony Blair into partnership with van Eemeren & Grootendorst. These allies created the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, held the Society’s first conference in 1986, and have held ISSA conferences every four years since.  Encouragement of competing views. Repeatedly, Frans has pulled together working groups from diverse theoretical

NEVER THE SAME Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

Francisca Snoeck Henkemans is an Associate Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam.

In 1976, I encountered Frans for the first time, when he was teaching a course on the basic principles of speech act theory and argumentation theory. It was a time when everyone was sociably smoking during classes. Frans was the only one who wanted to quit smoking back then, which caused him to hold his unlit cigarette in his hand during the entire lecture; he only allowed himself to light it after the class was finished. Thanks to the cigarette in his hand, Frans remained thoroughly focused, which resulted in his lectures being so

7 clear, so carefully worded, and so interesting that from that time on I was forever devoted to the subject of speech communication. In retrospect, it appears everything I experienced in that class was very characteristic of Frans. In the pragmadialectical argumentation theory that he and Rob Grootendorst developed in the seventies, insights from speech act theory were combined with those from dialectical argumentation theory. A high level of clarity and a balanced way of formulating can be found throughout all of Frans’ academic work. And the methodical way in which Frans approached the problem of quitting smoking proved to be characteristic too. At least once a year Frans will set himself a target with respect to improving his physical or mental health, carefully noting all the running scores in his calendar. It is not surprising therefore, that after 35 years Frans is almost perfect in every respect. Fortunately, however, now and again there is a minor relapse, so that he remains human. After his doctoral thesis had been translated into English, Frans became increasingly focused on international collaborations. He attended conferences all over the world, from America to Armenia, and in 1986, he organized the first major international argumentation conference in Amsterdam together with colleagues from the US and Canada, a conference that Frans has organized every four years since that time. In the early eighties, maintaining international contacts was not very common in the Humanities, and certainly not in the Department of Dutch Studies. “Why don’t you guys all relocate to the airport?”, asked a fellow professor of modern literature resentfully. But Frans did plenty of work in the Netherlands as well: he was appointed Full Professor of Speech Communication in 1984, and since that time, over forty PhD candidates have enjoyed Frans’ enthusiastic and sound supervision. His love for conducting research has never diminished. Nobody can collaborate with others on an article or a book in such an enthusiastic manner. No matter how busy Frans is, he always has time to talk to those who need him, and is genuinely interested in all his

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

colleagues and PhD students. Although not possessing any authority of experience, he is always the first to notice when someone is pregnant, and always knows which PhD student is in love with whom since when, and which of his national or international colleagues has started a new life. Dear Frans, we will miss you dearly. Although you will often be around, and will remain actively engaged in the field, it will never be the same for us!

A GREETINGS TELEGRAM Erik Krabbe

Erik Krabbe is Professor Emeritus of Logic and Philosophical Theory of Argumentation at the University of Groningen.

Esteemed Professor, Dear Frans, Your valedictory of Friday, May 13, has been delivered without mishap. You must be relieved. But, beware: Friday the 13th is there, but yet gone. It is my task now to present an analytic survey and evaluation of your valedictory lecture. First the survey.

8 Fortunately, all of the lecture can be compressed into one sentence:

Dialectics and rhetoric must be integrated.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

PRAGMA-DIALECTICAL GLASSES

That was the survey. Now to evaluate, I realize we have learned two things from this lecture. This can be shown by the following example: Suppose we want to convince someone that your lecture was a bad lecture, then we could do so by claiming it was a good one and adducing, as the only reason for saying so, the fact that at the end you mentioned Her Majesty. Thus, we would insinuate that there is no better way to argue for the quality of your lecture, which would make it appear bad. Thanks to your lecture we now all know (1) that this would be a fallacy, but also (2) that it could be a very effective way of arguing. So yours was in fact a good lecture. So much about the lecture, but you, Frans, are you good or bad? This may be your valedictory, but fortunately you are not leaving the world of argumentation. If you were really going to leave us, you would be bad. But you aren’t, and therefore you are good. Good enough to deserve a eulogy (follows a brief eulogy of Frans’s scholarly

Assimakis Tseronis

But, lo, I nearly forgot, the telegram. Where is it? Here, I got it. A greetings telegram. For you, routed through Groningen. Sent off a year ago. I’d sooner use the e-mail. Even a stamp on it. Weird. All the way from Farawaystan, from our mutual friend Bula Hamburger: Professor Hamburger PhD PhD

Assimakis Tseronis is, as of this April, an Assistant Professor of Multimodal Rhetoric and Cognition at the University of Amsterdam.

achievements, cooperation with colleagues, organization of the field, and hospitality).

PhD, University of Prosjt, Farawaystan: Lieber Franz, so happy you reached early retirement STOP in Farawaystan we have only early demise, so pity STOP heard big rumor, mein Freund STOP you go writing big handbook on argumentation STOP brilliant Hamburger approach must be included STOP requires longish Kapitel STOP come to Prosjt and be pampered STOP we must discuss details at swimming pool in between drinking hours STOP fly today, hurry, hurry STOP Bula Hamburger PhD PhD PhD STOP STOP STOP.

I stop.

I met Frans in August 2002, when I arrived in Amsterdam as a student for the MPhil in Logic, Language and Argumentation. Among the things that got my attention from Frans’ lectures early on was his use of diagrams to help students visualize the concepts that he introduced: the five estates that constitute the realm of argumentation represented as boxes interlinked with arrows, for example, or the “relevance cube” representing the three dimensions of relevance that characterize the various questions arising in the analysis of argumentative discourse. What triggered my imagination the most, was the metaphor of the glasses that Frans used in order to explain the importance of taking a clear perspective from where one

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

9 should set out to analyse argumentative discourse. He would say that, for the same piece of discourse, one can propose a psychological analysis, or a political science analysis, or an argumentative analysis, to mention only three. And when taking the perspective of a psychological analysis, one could choose a Freudian or a Lacanian stance, and so on and so forth. When doing an argumentative analysis from a pragmadialectical perspective, one, as it were, would choose to put one’s pragma-dialectical glasses on and look at argumentative discourse through those lenses. This image of the pragma-dialectical glasses was instantly engraved in my memory. It would bring in mind eyeglasses used to correct refractive errors of the eye, sunglasses that protect oneself from ultraviolet light, a fancy pair of trademark glasses that help one to stand out, or even see-through X-ray glasses that let you see directly to the skin or bone of what it is you are looking at! The pragma-dialectical glasses have helped me since then look through discourse for the “argumentatively relevant aspects”, as Frans would put it, and to make the distinction between interesting and irrelevant questions when setting out to analyse discourse. They have helped me start and finish a PhD in Leiden University and even find a post-doc position in France. I am grateful to Frans for having introduced this pair of pragma-dialectical glasses to the world three decades ago, and for making sure ever since that they do not go out of style. Thank you Frans for opening up the way!

A TEACHER AND A FRIEND Bilal Amjarso My first encounter with Frans van Eemeren must have taken place sometime during the second semester of the academic year 20022003, at a lecture that he, together with Peter Houtlosser, gave on advances in pragmadialectics. Until then, I had only known

Bilal Amjarso is a lecturer at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam.

Frans through his writings. He was ‘simply’ the influential argumentation theorist whose work I needed in order to understand modern argumentation theory. But as our contact gradually intensified, I also learned to appreciate him as a person, as a mentor and, later on, as a friend. It all started with an e-mail that Frans sent me some time in November 2004 in which he encouraged me to apply for NOW’s Mozaiek PhD scholarship. I was then a student in the Research Master Programme, full of ambitions, but lacking confidence in my intellectual capabilities. His encouragement raised my confidence to such an extent that I started believing that, with the few things I had learnt about argumentation, I could go further than just the Research Master. After all, if Frans van Eemeren himself thought that I was capable of doing a PhD, then that must have been true! This issue of the Chronicle is the opportunity to celebrate a scholar whose contributions to argumentation theory cannot be ignored. To me it is also an opportunity to think of what my relationship with Frans has meant to me personally. During the period I spent as a PhD student of his, I had the pleasure of having informal discussions with

10

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

him during which we discussed all matters of life. These discussions gave me the chance to get to know the man better, but they also gave me the chance to acquaint myself with his views on the issues of the day. Among the topics I most enjoyed discussing with him was Dutch politics. Let me say that I had found it hard to believe that he took any interest in politics at all, for his dedication to his work was unparalleled, but after learning that he followed everything that happened in the country, I started seizing every opportunity to elicit his views on issues that interested me. I must say in all honesty that those discussions were crucial to shaping the way I have come to look at the Dutch society and culture. I would like to say ‘Thank you’ to Frans. I would also like to express my wish that our informal discussions will continue.

SLIGHTLY TOO AMBITIOUS Constanza Ihnen It doesn’t seem like it could be 8 years since I met Frans – then ‘professor van Eemeren’ – at a conference on Argumentation in Chile. The focus of the conference was the five components of the pragma-dialectical programme. I was pleasantly surprised to learn he had developed a research master which combined all my interests: philosophy, logic, linguistics, sociology, rhetoric. This academic and intellectual freedom was indulged until I began work on my dissertation, supervised by the man of the hour. Over the course of our many dissertation meetings, Frans would repeatedly tell me, “too philosophical,” “too theoretical,” “focus, Constanza,” “limit yourself,” “leave some problems to others,” and, finally, the most stinging of all... “...that is slightly too ambitious”. Keeping a tight rein on my Faustian aspirations is something that, thanks to Frans, I have learned to understand and

Constanza Ihnen is a PhD student at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam.

appreciate – after I learned to control my frustration that is... Amusingly, whilst I was learning that I could never study all the things I wanted to study at the same time, I found out that Frans had done precisely this in a single book: Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. I have never said this to Frans, but I would like to say it now, publicly: If the subject of overly ambitious academic works is still open... I would like to nominate this book. There is one important addendum, however: unlike most others, it actually delivers what it promises. This is just a roundabout way of saying that I admire Frans’ work immensely, and that I am grateful to have studied his writings first-hand. I feel just as grateful for his intellectual and personal support, and his generosity. I am glad he will now have more time to continue enlarging his knowledge, and extra time, also, for nice conversations over (an always low carb) lunch.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

11

ALWAYS RIGHT Corina Andone Dear Frans, You have always been right! I am not saying that like the son to his father in your coauthored “quick course in argumentation in 20 lessons.” Since the father could not hope for much respect from his son, he wanted to be pleased by at least being considered right. As for myself, I mean that your arguments have convinced me of the rightness of your standpoints. It is not the occasion now to mention all the times you have been right, but I will mention one of the first and the later times. The first time you were right was, of course, when we first met, and it is, by the way, one of the occasions you often mention about me. I was then paying what was called a research visit at the University of Amsterdam. Besides doing what is expected from this kind of visits, I had the idea to make copies of some argumentation books available in the library. Taking notice of my plans, you gave me some original copies of books. This, of course, made me happy, but left me with a strange feeling that I would leave behind many other books. And so I proceeded with my plan which without exaggeration could be called “Photocopy all the argumentation books in the library of the University of Amsterdam.” Seeing all this, you had great doubts that I would ever be able to read that much. Your doubts were shared by the lady working at the post office to which I went to collect my books. Because I received only two of the three packages, I protested vehemently. Obviously intrigued by my protest, the lady asked, “Aren’t these two enough?” Yes, yes, you were right! The books you gave me were more than enough to read before I returned just a few months later to Amsterdam to become your student! Now about one of the more recent times you have been right! You once claimed that Dutch is the most beautiful language in the world. At that point, all my convictions were ruined. I learned at school exactly the

Corina Andone is an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam.

same about my mother tongue. I wrote essays at school about the beauty of my language and I even got prizes for them. So, I had to do something to see if you were right. Again, I proceeded with a plan. I learned the language, partly thanks to your advice and support. And I came out of this experience believing that there is another beautiful language besides my mother tongue, although I cannot say that it is the most beautiful, because I do not yet speak all the languages in the world. I guess, though, that this is what you also meant. Again, indeed, you were right! To conclude, I really hope that you will continue to be right and that others will admit it. As you say in that “quick course in argumentation in 20 lessons”, being considered right is the art. And rightly so.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

12

CONSISTENCY Dima Mohammed

Dima Mohammed is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Philosophy of Language at the New University of Lisbon.

The most serious side-effect of being devoted to my PhD research project was developing an obsession with accusations of inconsistency. After spending a couple of years looking for such accusations in political discussions and exploring their strategic function as they occur, I started seeing inconsistencies everywhere. I started to worry. But luckily, Frans was my PhD supervisor. Not that I dared confessing my worries to him, but at a certain point, I started realising how ‘very consistent’ he was. I cannot really remember when I first noticed that, but at some point I started realising that I’m able to predict what he is going to say or do, just by remembering what he has said or done on a previous ‘similar’ occasion. Frans is consistent in his formulations. The choice of formulations Frans makes is consistent not only in the articles he has written over the years, but also in the way he criticises his students’ texts in a PhD meeting and even in the way he narrates a story, any story. I’m

always amazed by his exceptional ability to reproduce a story so spontaneously and yet with great precision. Frans is also consistent in the different roles he plays in the different ‘activity types’ in which he participates. He is for example a consistently critical supervisor during dissertation discussion meetings, and yet a consistently supportive and understanding friend if you meet him outside these meetings for a drink. Actually, Frans is also very consistent in what he drinks: black tea and sparkling water during the day and white wine later. Frans is consistent even in the jokes he makes and tells about himself and others. Once a joke is out, you can certainly be sure that you will hear it over and over again, every time the occasion allows, in fact. But that’s not all, of course. All these years, since ‘the seventies’ like Frans likes to say, Frans has been consistent (and also persistent) in his interest in argumentation theory; in collaborating with other scholars and ex-students to develop and further develop pragma-dialectics and in addressing the challenges that face argumentation theorists in general. Dear Frans, thank you, especially, but certainly not only, for being so consistent. Thank you for being my teacher. I would like to remain in some sense a student of yours. One who does not only study your work and use it, but one who also observes you and learns from that.

TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE Marcin Lewinski Even speaking very shortly of Frans van Eemeren requires speaking of two different people: van Eemeren, and Frans. When I studied philosophy in Poland, there were two kinds of philosophers: writers of the books that I was reading, and actual teachers that I was listening to. They were never the same people. So, I would spend hours reading Plato or Aristotle, but I didn’t really get a chance to

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

13

naturally drifts in a different direction. Plan failed... Yet, with some training, you end up with this: footnote 42 explained in a handwritten note with added spoken commentary. Life discussed meanwhile. Glass of wine finished and you’re ready to thank for a nice dinner and leave. That is to say, Frans van Eemeren becomes one person. Of whom you eagerly expect more books and more dinners. Especially now that he’s retired and has all the time for both.

UVA BOULEVARD Bart Garssen & Agnes van Rees

Marcin Lewinski is a postdoctoral researcher at the Institute for Philosophy of Language at the New University of Lisbon.

talk to them very often. Kant and Habermas were equally silent. Nowhere to be found for a chat or a drink. In contrast, my teachers were too busy explaining what Plato or Kant would say, if they ever spoke again, to write books of their own. A clear division of labour. So now imagine the thrill of meeting van Eemeren and Frans at around the same time. You go to a library, and there is a hefty, U-shaped shelf of “van Eemeren and...” books. You read these books and feel like it’s worthwhile to spend quite some time, a few years perhaps, studying them in detail and talking to van Eemeren. In your mind, of course, like you used to talk to Kant before. And then comes the great surprise: the first day you arrive in Amsterdam, you meet Frans, flesh and bones. He shakes hands, smiles, and even talks and listens to you. He is a living being and actually a very nice, engaging one. So, encouraged, after a few meetings you finally decide to ask him to explain the third line of a footnote 42 on page 167 of one of his books. But, before you even start, he asks you “How is life, Marcin?” And the conversation

Bart Garssen is an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. Agnès van Rees is a retired Associate Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. Their sketch is based on the Dutch celebrity gossip and entertainment show ‘RTL Boulevard’.

W: Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, in this latest edition of UvA Boulevard, your very own source of celebrity news, gossip, and the latest fads and feuds. A:

Your hosts are Wilma Rees Nanninga and Albart Verlinde. Tonight we are having a very special edition, indeed.

W: Why is that, Albart?

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

14

anyone out until the assembled staff had taken a decision in their favor. But Frans didn’t give in and simply adjourned the meeting. A:

A true hero. Well, we know that this guy doesn’t shrink back from anybody in power. He persists as long as it takes for getting what he wants.

W: Well, Albart, what do we know about the life style of the professor? A:

A:

Well, Wilma, we have a very special topic tonight, a truly hot item about a professor who is going to retire, except work will be going on as usual, he says.

W: Who might that be? A:

Who else than Frans Hendrik Van Eemeren.

W: Oh, of course, we know him from his Fallacies, right? A: Right, we have looked him up in Wikipedia, and there it says he is professor of linguistics and argumentation theory. W: Most interesting, but, tell us, what have we found out about the professor? A:

Well, did you know that the professor, a long time ago when he wasn’t a professor yet, used to go swimming with his colleagues in the swimming pool on the Heiligeweg and afterwards went out for coffee and orange juice and didn’t appear in the office until 11 a.m.?

W: Well, well, well. But if I’m not mistaken, that was a period in which he already had started writing a lot. Who isn’t familiar with the course book ‘Summarizing’ from those days, with the famous distinction between indicative and informative summaries. A:

Sure, and that was just the beginning. All in all he has more than 400 publications to his name.

W: A real top gun then! Speaking of which, did you know that in those days he was taken hostage during a faculty meeting by a group of neo-marxist fundamentalists? They wouldn’t let

For one thing, he always is dressed pico bello. Custom made, of course.

W: Of course. But what he really is known for are his smart shoes. In every foreign country he visits, and there is probably none where he hasn’t been, he buys a pair or two. How many do you think he possesses? A:

Well, if it is as many as his ties, it must be some 200…

W: Are you saying he is vain? A:

No, not vain, he just loves beautiful clothes.

W: By the way, did you know he is never ill? A:

Is that so? Wasn’t he in hospital with a hernia long ago?

W: Yes, but first he had stubbornly persisted for a couple of months in walking to the office dragging his leg until he couldn’t go any further. Just like, last year, he kept on walking for over a month with a threefold rupture in leg and ankle. A:

What a hero.

W: Absolutely. Did you know that every year he makes an exercise of the will? About losing weight, living healthier, drinking less. A:

That’s right. And they say that everything is closely documented and crossed off in the diary: weight, sleep, what not. A true scholar, right?

W: Let me disclose a secret: he has been signaled in a sports club. A:

Is that so?

W: Well, of course a very high-class one, where all kinds of famous people train, like professor Lodewijk Brunt and professor Louise Fresco.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

15 A:

Frankly, he can do with a little training, because I know for a fact that he abundantly adheres to high standards in eating and drinking.

W: Oh, but a threesome of fried eggs sunny side up, or ‘bitterballs’, or chunks of cheese allegedly go well with him too. A:

Yes, knowing when to stop is not his strong point, I have heard.

W: And what about his love life, Albart? A:

Well, Wilma, unfortunately there is little to report. It seems that he has been together with his Paul for more than 30 years now.

W: Aw that is too bad, Albart, such a hunk…. A:

Well, there are rumors about a certain Simon…..

W: Unfortunately, we cannot at this point elaborate, because this program has to come to an end. But if one thing has become clear from our research, it is that our professor stands for quality, in his work, in his life, in his friendships. A:

Yes, Wilma, you are absolutely right. And let us not forget that he himself is a golden stunner, smart, sweet, witty, considerate, hospitable, and generous.

W: This was UvA Boulevard, we wish you a wonderful evening.

AN IDEAL MODEL FOR A LEISURELY RETIREMENT Nanon Labrie, Roosmaryn Pilgram, Lotte van Poppel & Renske Wierda ABSTRACT Frans van Eemeren is a great inspiration for us. He is a dedicated supervisor of each of our PhD projects. His knowledge, insights and precision have been indispensable for our research. Apart from that, the pragmadialectical ideal model for a critical discussion, which Frans developed together with Rob

From left to right: Nanon Labrie is a PhD student at the Institute of Communication and Health of the University of Lugano. Renske Wierda is a PhD student at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam. Lotte van Poppel and Roosmaryn Pilgram are both working as a lecturer / PhD student at the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam.

Grootendorst (1984, 1992), and the integration of rhetorical insights in this model, which Frans realised together with Peter Houtlosser (2002a, 2002b), constitute the theoretical framework for our respective PhD projects. What is more, there is a completely different way in which Frans inspired us. His work on argumentation theory and his current retirement made us explore our ideas in another area. In this contribution, we will present the outcome of this exploration, namely our very own Ideal Model for a Leisurely Retirement. As with the model for a critical discussion, we, first, stipulate Ten Commandments for our model. Although it can be assumed that retirees will, in principle, observe these commandments in order to retire in a leisurely fashion, their simultaneous aim for a continued professional effect can result in violations of the commandments. We will, secondly, identify various fallacies that correspond to commandment violations. Third, inspired by the integrated pragma-dialectical theory, we have taken into account that retirees can manoeuvre strategically in times of retirement. Fourth, we specify three aspects that work together in a retiree’s strategic manoeuvring. KEYWORDS: Ideal model, leisurely retirement, strategic manoeuvring, ten commandments.

16 1. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS Rule 1 – Freedom Rule: Retirees must not prevent each other from undertaking leisurely activities or preparing for leisurely activities. Rule 2 – Burden of Groove Rule: A retiree who undertakes a leisurely activity is obliged to do so in a groovier and less serious manner than he used to during his professional life. Rule 3 – Stand Off Rule: A retiree’s leisurely activities must not be fully identical to the activities he undertook professionally. Rule 4 – Relevance Rule: A retiree may undertake activities only if he believes them to be relevant in achieving a leisurely retirement. Rule 5 – Non-Distressed Premise Rule: A retiree must act from the premise that he shall not be distressed and may not deny commitment to this premise if he himself has ignored it. Rule 6 – Starting Sports Rule: A retiree may not falsely present reasons to avoid starting exercising nor stop exercising when he is only half-way through. Rule 7 – Passivity Rule: In his recreation, a retiree may occasionally alternate or combine leisure activities with passivity. Rule 8 – Recreation Scheme Rule: A retiree may regard undertaking a leisurely activity as time well spent if the activity fits an appropriate recreation scheme that is also correctly applied. Rule 9 – Closure Rule: A successful retirement by a person who intends to retire must result in a step-by-step closure of the activities that he undertakes professionally. Rule 10 – Usage Rule: A retiree may make use of his position if there are insufficient seats in public transport or if assistance is required in confusingly ambiguous situations.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

2. VIOLATIONS OF THE COMMANDMENTS Any violation of the rules formulated under 1, in principle, frustrates or hinders the achievement of a leisurely retirement and should, consequently, be avoided. If a violation occurs, a fallacy is said to be committed. Three examples:

Argumentum ad laborem excessivum (fallacy of working too much, violation of Rule 3): A: What do you say about trying out that new restaurant? B: I’m sorry, but I’ve got a lot of grading to do tonight.

Argumentum ad lentum (fallacy of laziness, violation of Rule 6): A: Why don’t you hop along to the gym? B: Don’t think so, I need to be available in case someone at the department needs me.

Argumentum ad non beneficium (fallacy of non-usage, violation of Rule 10): A: Would you like a ticket with discount for the elderly, sir? B: How dare you insult me!

17 3. MANOEUVRING STRATEGICALLY IN TIMES OF RETIREMENT Although it can be assumed that retirees will, in principle, aim to reasonably live their retirement in a leisurely fashion, they may simultaneously strive for a continued professional effect. The retirees’ continuous balancing between enjoying their newly found leisure time and their ongoing professional interests results in strategic manoeuvring. If the retiree’s professional objectives appear to prevail, such manoeuvring can be said to derail and, thereby, frustrate or hinder the leisurely retirement. In such a situation, (at least) one of the Ten Commandments is violated.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

Aiming to keep a reasonable balance between his leisurely and professional activities, the retiree will have to weigh carefully which activities to engage in while at the tropical destination of choice. It should be clear that academic activities, such as conferences, lecturing and international dissertation meetings, should alternate with leisurely activities, such as sunbathing, sleeping and swimming.

A STATUE Rudolf Geel

4. THREE ASPECTS OF STRATEGIC MANOEUVRING 1. Tropical potential The concept of “tropical potential” refers to the range of tropical lecture options available to the retiree upon retirement (in alphabetical order, list not exhaustive): Bari, Evanston, Lisbon, Lugano, Tokyo. By making a careful selection from the available tropical potential, the retiree can achieve his aim of obtaining a leisurely retirement, while at the same time remaining professionally active and effective. 2. Vacation upon demand In contrast to during employment, upon retirement, a retiree may go on a vacation upon demand. That is, without deliberating with colleagues and academic bureaucrats, the retiree may book a holiday whenever and for how long he wants to. Even the question with whom to travel is, upon retirement, open to discussion. Also, the type of activities undertaken is upon demand. 3. Recreational choices Other than the aspect of tropical selection, the aspect of recreational choices does not refer to the selection of the destination for the retiree’s leisurely activities. Rather, it refers to the type of activities employed by the retiree at the destination of his choice.

Rudolf Geel is a former Assistant Professor of Speech Communication, Argumentation theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. He is currently a writer and a trainer in presentation and writing skills.

During his life as a scholar, Frans has built a statue for himself. But there is a slight difference between his argumentation-statue and a regular one: people can not only look at it, in admiration for the many publications of the Amsterdam School of Argumentation, but they can also use it for their own benefit. And that is exactly the goal Frans wants to achieve.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

18 Real scholars, like artists, are during their lifetime working to leave something behind, they cannot live with the idea that they are working just for themselves. It will be obvious to everyone that building a system to achieve better argumentation is one of the most important things you can do in this mean and selfish world, full of crooks and politicians who only argue for their own benefit. Therefore, Frans fully deserves to be honoured as a great man. So much for Frans as a scholar. But there is more. I had the pleasure to work with him from the moment he entered our staff. As one of the few members not involved in argumentation theory (my subject was writing) I examined with admiration how the Amsterdam Argumentation School was built by my colleagues, step by step. Frans was their inspirer and leader (he is too peaceful to call him ‘the General’), and still is, although he abdicated. Since that time, he travels around the globe like a prophet, spreading the good news of a world ruled by highly qualified argumentation. Besides all this, I consider Frans and his partner Paul as close friends. It’s always a pleasure to have them around, or to have dinner with them. At those moments, Frans is at his best, especially when he starts telling stories. Frans is a born narrator, and he always knows everything about everyone. When Frans begins, even argumentation is not important anymore. This is his literary side, and I always love to listen to him. Because Frans is really funny, he could also have been a stand up-comedian. That’s true. And it’s true because I say so. Isn’t that the best argument to assure Frans that I love him?

ANIMAL TYPOLOGY Francisca Jungslager Dear Frans, In addition to all the laudation, it is perhaps not made clear that, apart from your work in argumentation theory, you have also made a

Francisca Jungslager is teaching Academic Writing at the University of Amsterdam, and is working on a novel.

significant contribution to the field of Psychology. What a miracle that you have found time for this in your busy life! In my memory, your days were fully occupied: you and Rob arrived continually unshaven and with a whiff of alcohol on your breath, straight from Azerbaijan where you had lectured about reasonableness, and where your hosts – according to local tradition – had accompanied you all the way to the bumpy runway sprinkling you with farewell wishes and homebrewed vodka. The rest of the day, you would spend non-stop working on deepening the Theory of Argumentation and spreading it over the world. Now that I come to think about it, it must have been the precious drinking hour in Café Scheltema that you sacrificed for Psychology. I would like to pick one theory here: the Animal Typology. In short this theory states that humans can be characterized according to an animal type, and subsequently the animal type can predict the behavior, the character and the looks of that person. I recall

19 that there were hamsters, ponies, birds of prey, reptiles and horses among us. For this occasion, I thought it appropriate to apply, for once, the theory to you, Frans. For this, I used the Complete Animal Encyclopedia (2009) and after a difficult and deep analysis, I came to the conclusion that you can best be typed as a llama. Why a llama? Page 37: ‘The llama, and especially the leader, distinguishes himself by his extreme intelligence.’ Page 43: ‘The llama leader always succeeds in making sure that his own herd grazes on the most green and grassy meadows. He is a master in luring away others (they don’t even seem to realize what is happening!) Page 56: The llama doesn’t recognizes faces. In a zoo, for example, even his most friendly animal caretaker will have to introduce himself again and again. Page 76: Very typical of the llama is the perilous spitting. Especially one has to watch out for the llama leader himself. When does the llama spit? The llama spits when he feels threatened, misunderstood, not respected, but above all when he has doubts about whether his herd animals are faithful to him. The llama spit is so poisonous that once spitted in the face, one will never think of coming close to the leader again (and that, in fact, is the very aim of the llama). And like this, it goes on and on. But what made me decide on the llama was pointed out at page 102: the eye of the llama is the sweetest eye of all animal eyes in the world. Let’s hope that in the time to come, we will all see your sweet llama eyes very often upon us.

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1

20

Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, vol. 8, no. 1