Empirical Research On The Conventional Validity In Argumentative Discourse

Argumentation is a research branch of linguistics which is not just on the rhetorical level as speech skills,but a multi-disciplinary theory involving logic,philosophy, grammar,discourse,communication,social and cultural features.The empirical research is based on the theoretical framework of pragma-dialectics with the aim to elucidate conventional validity problem in argumentative discourse by means of interviews,questionnaires combining both qualitative and quantitative analyses.Although lacking of systematical knowledge on critical discussion and pragma-dialectic theory,ordinary language users may have some common sense in logic and rational knowledge.The results of the study reveal that:Firstly,Ordinary language users are able to distinguish fallacy and non-fallacy;despite the fact that they have the essential understanding of fallacy,it is still difficult to make the distinction between ad hominem fallacy and straw man fallacy.Secondly,although influenced by social factors,ordinary language users' judgment on rationality is basically consistent. Finally,ordinary language users employ some norms and are aware of the influence of context,identity of interlocutors,etc.in the judgment.Therefore,their judgments are systematic.To a certain extent,the judgments of ordinary language users accord with pragma-dialectical theory and prove the conventional validity of CDRs.The paper presents theoretical implications and limitations of the study of conventional validity issue.