THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE

SPECIAL ISSUE DEDICATED TO PETER HOUTLOSSER (1956-2008)

AUGUST 2008

Dear friends,

Although to most of us the death of Peter Houtlosser did not come as a surprise – as we all knew he had suffered from cancer for two years – we were all stricken with grief at such a great loss. Peter was a strong-minded person. For him, ‘fighting cancer’ was too much of a cliché, but giving in to it was no option either. Peter simply chose to continue living his life as normally as his health could allow. In fact, despite illness, Peter continued working on projects he had already started, attended conferences, visited new places and, not to forget, made new friends. Peter died on February 14th, 2008, at the age of 51. With this special issue of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle we would like to commemorate Peter Houtlosser as we all knew him: a great person and a great argumentation scholar.

Frans van Eemeren 2 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Peter did not waste his time By Frans van Eemeren 3

Peter in the eyes of his students By Theodora Achourioti, Bilal Amjarso, Corina Andone, Dima Mohammed, Marija 4 Snieckute and Assimakis Tseronis

Remembering Peter 5 Teacher and Friend By Theodora Achourioti 5 Question time! By Bilal Amjarso 5 A walk through the South of Amsterdam By Corina Andone 5 The last domain By Merel Boers 6 Peter as a mystery guest By Eveline Feteris 7 Unfollowed advice By Bart Garssen 7 The Houtlosser Dilemma By Erik C. W. Krabbe 8 With Peter to Koper By Jan Albert van Laar and Henrike Jansen 8 “He’s always late” By Marcin Lewiński 9 Jammer hè? By Bert Meuffels 9 The charm of the old-fashioned By Dima Mohammed 10 “Good question!” By José Plug 10 Who's Afraid of Peter Houtlosser? By Leah Polcar 11 From student to colleague: My years with Peter By Agnès van Rees 11 “I am Rodie Risselada” By Francisca Snoeck Henkemans 12 Caring, Generous, Tease By Assimakis Tseronis 12 A present for Peter By Jean Wagemans 12

An Hour with Peter Interview with Bilal Amjarso 13

Tributes for Peter Houtlosser 16

News 19

Recent book publications by the Amsterdam School 21

Call for Papers for the 7th ISSA Conference 21

3 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

PETER DID NOT WASTE HIS Organisation for Scientific Research, which TIME allowed these students to write their doctoral dissertations as part of a research program on By Frans van Eemeren strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Even after he had to withdraw from other activities Peter Houtlosser was someone who did not want to due to his illness, Peter continued to advise these waste time. When he discovered in the 1970s that and other talented students. These tasks he studying Dutch Language and Literature did not performed, like everything else he did for us, with live up to his expectations, he decided to move on his whole heart. Peter certainly did not waste his to a more concrete occupation. He became a time. scenery carpenter at the Nederlandse Opera. Fortunately, after five years he regarded his carpentry as finished and returned (in 1983) to the university. This time he found in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric of the University of Amsterdam exactly what he had been looking for: a field of study that captured his interest and professors who inspired him. In spite of their initial reluctance because of Peter’s persistent way of questioning them, his professors discovered pretty quickly that his critical attitude was caused only by his authentic desire to understand at all times precisely how things are – whatever these things might have been. To my mind, this urge to understand, not only in his working life, was – combined with his striking personality – one of Peter’s greatest assets. During the past twelve years Peter As a comeback student, Peter became Houtlosser and I concentrated our joint research for fascinated by the study of argumentation. It the most part on the design quality of therefore came as no surprise that he wanted to be argumentative discourse captured by the notion a PhD student and write a doctoral dissertation. ‘strategic maneuvering’. We wanted to extend the The results of his doctoral research were published pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation in in 1995 in the monograph Standpunten in een such a way that the analysis and evaluation could kritische discussie [Standpoints in a critical become more refined and better accounted for. To discussion], which is still quoted frequently by reach our goal, we aimed for enriching our Dutch colleagues and students. Meanwhile Peter dialectical theoretical framework systematically had acquired a taste for research and knew for with rhetorical insights. As a matter of course, we certain that it was his kind of thing. He and I were eager to discuss the views we developed with together started a comprehensive research project others in the field interested in the same problems aimed at integrating insights from rhetoric in the or similar problems. dialectical theory of argumentation developed in In our publications on strategic Amsterdam. Peter, who had become an Assistant maneuvering, starting in 1998, Peter Houtlosser Professor in our department and Book Review and I claimed that a full analysis and evaluation of Editor of the journal Argumentation, proved to be argumentative discourse is possible only if the an extremely active and productive scholar who argumentation concerned is first situated in the rapidly gained a considerable international communicative context in which it occurs. This reputation. His intense way of discussing research means that pragma-dialecticians, next to their problems has become legendary among his analytically motivated theoretical model of critical colleagues, and all his friends in the international discussion designed for enabling a normative community of argumentation theorists will miss treatment of argumentation, also need to have an him dearly. empirically justified theoretical concept of the Peter also enjoyed teaching, especially in communicative activity type in which the the international research Master program argumentation takes place. Communicative activity Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and Philosophy. types are connected with certain institutionalized The idea that talented students from all over the spheres or domains of discourse and they have a world had come to Amsterdam to study more or less conventional format that is argumentation had a strong appeal to him. He instrumental in realizing the primary goals of the always tried to get the maximum out of his students activity types concerned. In characterizing a and, in turn, the students considered him a communicative activity type argumentatively, we marvelous teacher. In an effort to keep the best argued that the parameters pertinent to students somewhat longer with us, he applied – distinguishing between the one activity type and successfully – for a grant from the Netherlands another could be derived from the distinctive 4 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle features of the four stages distinguished in the That is why prior to meeting with pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. Peter, you knew you had better prepare yourself In this way, crucial theoretical instruments were very well, for you knew nothing would escape created for linking the empirical context of the his scrutiny. You became prepared for a long rhetorical dimension of strategic maneuvering discussion, and for a challenging critic who systematically with the ideal of resolving hardly ever got tired of discussing every last differences of opinion on the merits by critically detail of your text. He had the exceptional testing the tenability of the standpoints at issue that ability to see indefinite problems, for example, is the normative context of the dialectical seeing that things did not follow or that claims dimension. Peter Houtlosser and I were out to were not well supported, as well as the identify the preconditions for carrying out incredible persistence in not turning a blind eye argumentative discourse in a certain to these problems. We would often leave his communicative activity type that determine the office confused and with more questions than constraints and opportunities of strategic answers, thanks to his habit of confronting our maneuvering in that activity type. ideas with even more ideas. When Peter and I started our project on Even though we knew that we would strategic manoeuvring in argumentative activity be exposed to his criticism and that we would types, Peter had already been diagnosed with run the risk of getting confused, we were still cancer and he knew that his chances for survival eager to meet Peter. Perhaps we were tempted were very slim, if not non-existent. All the same he by the disillusionment, which we knew that he wanted to go on with the work we had started. This would certainly offer. It was not in spite of, but is why he spent a considerable amount of the through his never-ending criticism that Peter energy he had left on continuing his research and made us feel appreciated. Peter always took our presenting his views to others. Sadly, Peter did not views and doubts seriously. live to see the final results, but his work will live We always learned something from on in the work of his colleagues and students. Peter, even if it was not what we had expected, like, for instance, when he gave a rather detailed exposition of the history of the Netherlands. PETER IN THE EYES OF HIS Here, Peter included the genealogy of William STUDENTS of Orange, the separation between the Catholics and the Protestants, accompanied by a drawing By Theodora Achourioti, Bilal Amjarso, Corina of the map of the Netherlands on the whiteboard Andone, Dima Mohammed, Marija Snieckute and illustrating the different regions where the Assimakis Tseronis important events took place. And all in a class on strategic manoeuvring! Indeed, we learned from Peter more than what we had expected. Peter’s passion for presenting the finest details was always evident. Over borrels, he would spare no effort in talking passionately about the old and new buildings in Amsterdam, about the interior design of the old cafés, about the Hungarian authors translated into Dutch, about the history of the Second World War and about his trips in the Netherlands and all over Europe. Even when he realised that we could not follow him all the time, nothing would undermine his enthusiasm. Happily, we knew that Peter cared about our preferences. He always expressed a We got to know Peter as a lecturer and tutor, genuine interest in our peculiar habits, the books some of us as a thesis supervisor and as a co- and films that we like or dislike, the places that promotor, but as we got to know him more, all we have visited, even the kind of food that we of us recognised him also as a friend. love. Although Peter did not overtly praise us, During his teaching, Peter was he definitely managed to make each one of us extraordinarily passionate in explaining ideas feel special through his joking and teasing. Even and in attempting to convince the students of his though his jokes were not always easy to take, claims. His patience and his willingness to listen they eventually taught us to laugh at ourselves, were without limits. Not even time constraints because for Peter nothing was exempt from could make him give up responding to the sarcasm, not even himself. He was so proud of questions we raised or even from raising new his sense of sarcasm, especially when it allowed questions. him to laugh at how conventional we can be, but also when it revealed to him how conventional he himself could be. 5 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

Peter, you have influenced us in many Peter taught the people around him something ways. The special bond that you created with so about the value of life that is not always easy to much charm will always remain in our minds see. Thank you, Peter. and in our hearts. Question time! By Bilal Amjarso REMEMBERING PETER My first encounter with Peter must have taken place some time in November or December 2002. I was a student in the DASA programme. Having realised that we (DASA students at that time) had more questions than lecture-hours could accommodate, we asked The Department for a specific time in the week during which students could have their questions answered by one of the teachers. We were soon told that a Peter Houtlosser had volunteered to meet with us on a weekly basis to answer our questions and explain things to us. Peter had not taught us any classes then and so we were all looking forward to meeting him, and, of course, to testing his knowledge in argumentation theory. The Question Time, as Peter chose to call it, took place every Thursday from 12.00 to 13.00 in room 428 in the PCH building. And it proved to be a success – at least from the perspective of the students. We could ask whatever we wanted, like why the opening stage comes after and not before the confrontation stage. It was during the question time that I learned about the famous “Do you love your old man? Well, then” example, among many other things. There was, however, one little problem: we did not ask Peter enough questions. This must have bothered him a little, I’m sure. I, Teacher and Friend for one, started fearing that he would soon By Theodora Achourioti cancel the arrangement as our questions became fewer, but Peter never cancelled it. And during Peter was special and I am lucky to have met question times Peter hardly showed any signs of him, first as a teacher, then as a friend. As a annoyance. He simply took his time in teacher, he was both a pleasure and a challenge answering the (very few) questions that he had for us students to work with, always to answer. And after having answered the passionately engaging in discussions, and very question to our and his satisfaction he would critical of ideas, even his own. He never liked to lean slightly forward, and ask softly with a play the authoritative, infallible teacher. On the smile on his face, “Any questions?”. contrary, he was strikingly genuine; someone you knew would tell things as they really are. A walk through the South of Amsterdam I learned a lot from Peter, and theory By Corina Andone was only a small part of it. Most of all, I remain amazed by the way he chose to deal with his I have very fond memories of Peter. I remember illness; from the day he privately announced to with much pleasure my meetings with him in his close circle of friends what he had just come order to discuss various argumentation issues to know, to the last day in the hospital when he and the persistence with which he would try to said goodbye. Peter never showed make me understand exactly how things are. disillusionment about what was going to Peter was happy to share not only his in-depth happen; he openly talked about it, as well as knowledge of argumentation, but also his joked about it in his very Dutch sense of humor. expertise in many other things. I recall with joy I am amazed not to have ever seen a sign of one of the walks in Peter’s company through bitterness or anger these last few years. Instead, Amsterdam. Well familiar with the city, Peter Peter was very expressive, and made sure that introduced me to the southern part, where the his friends knew how special they were for him. architectural style of the Amsterdam School is I can only be grateful for all the time we had most prominent. In the company of Peter, it was happily chatting away over coffee or lunch. not simply a walk through the streets of this part 6 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle of the city, but a methodical presentation of the annoyed, sad. Peter shook his head. How can names of the architects, of the type of brick you feel those things, Merel, when this is used, of every tiny detail of the towers, evidently hilarious!? He recounted a scene, and ornamental spires and decorated windows of the did not get halfway through before he had to buildings. Naturally, he would have something laugh so hard it bounced back from the walls to say also about everything else in the area that and glass panes of the Hortus café. The elderly was not in the Amsterdam School style: the ladies who had been listening in on the entire Haarlemmermeer tram station, the open air conversation, now looked at Peter as if he was a school or the cemetery Huis te Vraag. Peter had South American Indian, naked but for a large a finely detailed story to tell about everything knife dangling from his waist in a soft monkey and he was always enthusiastic to do so. skin. The Peterian mixture of amazement and Experiences like this one make me remember triumph over others, his fiery wish that I, too, Peter so often. would find it funny, eventually enabled me to see Bernhard through Peter’s eyes. His capacity The last domain for the untouchable mood and his dictatorial gift By Merel Boers to subject the moods of others to his will, were awe inspiring. Peter was someone who could be so imposing, Still, there is one domain where he that he became intimidating. For a long time I never ruled over me. thought I could never add anything useful to a Once upon a time I studied in Vienna. head so full of determined knowledge. Each When Peter went there with Nora, he asked me subject came with a lecture attached. Did you for advice. I emptied my head into a document know, have you read, do you see... When he summing up strange and beautiful things in that was on his own turf, I gladly took on the role of ambiguous city. Not surprisingly, my advice sponge and tried to stay on his train of thought. was centred on food and drink. When he got It would be more difficult when he entered my back, Peter swore they had done everything on domain. Lecture became inquisition. In the the list, except a Pferdeleberkässemmel at the beginning, I had enough little facts to keep him horse butcher on the Gumpendorferstraße – that satisfied. But as his end drew near, his hunger was too much for Nora. On Vienna, Peter could for knowledge became ever more superhuman. chat endlessly and delightfully. Slowly our It was not long before I needed my bookcase conversation moved from Viennese waiters and and the library to answer his questions. Which I coffeehouse interiors to Dearly Beloved Cakes. conveniently excused by my extraordinarily bad Over long lunches, set up to discuss my memory for names and dates. My pride did not research, favourite and hated Amsterdam get damaged until Peter started reading stuff that venues were ranked along complicated but rigid I had been bashing myself over for not having lines of comfort, service and quality of food and read yet. When he mentioned classical works drink. When ordered food was served, it was that I had never heard of: "Merel, how can it be scrutinised immediately. I am a glutton, but you have never heard of that?" Back to sponge Peter never ever mentioned it. At Sal Meijer’s, it was. he joined in ordering an extra roll. And even For us lesser gods it was fortunate he when his stomach was kaput, he diligently usually kept his knives in velvet covers. The countered his ordeal with heaps of food. “Well, attack would do no more damage than a I got these duck legs, I had three and of course pinprick then. He would look at the drop of the starter, too... I had to lie down afterwards. It blood he had drawn, surprised and triumphant at took three hours for the pain to fade. No the same time. How easy was that? But you got painkiller that helps anymore. But it was worth another shot. You were always allowed to it.” Big grin. improve yourself. Turned out I could even give some If I did not mind assuming the role of advice, knew stores that this Great the audience, we could talk books. I Amsterdammer did not know, secret places for recommended the stories of fatalist dandy Best Wurst and Finest Cheese. Where do you go Hermann Harry Schmitz, but Peter of course for fish? What should one drink with goulash? knew something completely obscure in the same My butcher brined a shoulder of pork for me the genre – the Hungarian Deszö Kosztolányi, who other day... was funnier and wrote better. Naturally. In a It would have been a matter of time stern manner Peter would convey that only a before I would have definitely lost out on this few of Schmitz’ stories pleased him, whereas one as well, and would have had to succumb to Kosztolányi was fascinating from start to finish. Peter’s views on the best fishmonger, the only I had to agree, and felt slightly embarrassed brand for Amsterdam pickles and the perfect about my boundless enthusiasm for Schmitz oven temperature for a delicate roast. I am still earlier. Peter wanted to discuss Thomas racking my brain for the next common interest, Bernhard, a writer he considered a master-joker. where I may briefly be Peter’s equal once more. I read Bernhard, for Peter; felt hopeless, 7 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

Peter as a mystery guest By Eveline Feteris

That Peter would become my colleague and neighbour in an adjoining room at the University of Amsterdam was already foreshadowed by a mysterious visit by Peter to my house in the van Eeghenstraat in 1977. The mysterious visit took place in the days that we were students at the University of Amsterdam. In these days the boys had extremely long hair and we furnished our rooms with furniture found on the sidewalk. We discussed the latest articles in Vrij Nederland and Hollands Diep and waited for the publication of the newest novels by Gerard Reve and Willem Frederik Hermans. Cell-phones did not exist, so we visited each other unannounced and went to parties where friends of ours went although we were not invited. Peter's visit as a mystery guest occurred at a party of my boyfriend Willem who had decided to celebrate his bachelor exam with a lot of beer, wine and friends. One of these friends was Willem’s old friend and neighbour Leendert who brought some friends of his, among them Peter. The party was good and it ended, like all good parties at that time, in Peter: How was your trip to Antwerp last complete chaos. To enhance the atmosphere week? some people (among whom the same Peter) Bart: Oh, very nice! started throwing old cane garden chairs from the Peter: What train did you take? balcony of the fourth floor into the garden of the Bart: The uhm…11.30 train. landlady. Furthermore they found a ladder that Peter: Rather late wouldn’t you say? But they used to climb the wall of the bathroom wait… how can that be? There is no train to which resulted in terrified girls and a broken Antwerp that leaves at 11.30. glass door. The day after the party the landlady Bart: Uhm, but on Sunday… came to our room and required our immediate Peter: Oh, yes of course {sigh} there is an departure. 11.30 train on Sunday, why didn’t you tell me At that moment Peter did not know me in the first place? Anyway, did you have water and I did not know Peter and only some decades rabbit [muskrat] in restaurant the Golden later when we had become colleagues in the Pig, like I suggested? department of Speech Communication, Bart: Well, it was hard to find the Golden Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric Peter and I Pig. But I found a very nice place in… reconstructed that he had been at this eventful Peter: The Golden Pig hard to find? Pffff, you party and had been one of the mysterious guests. walk straight from the Egg Market, follow the As neighbours we often waved to each other curve until you see café The Ugly Madam – you through the open windows. I am sure that he know, also a fantastic place – and then you still wanted to throw things out of the window take a right. You just can’t miss it. but took great care to do this when I wasn't Bart: But that’s exactly what… looking. Peter: I think you are just afraid of eating water rabbit and that you cowardly went for Unfollowed advice Belgian fries with mayonnaise. But I By Bart Garssen trust you did see the bookstore I mentioned, you know, the one on Central Market. Peter demanded precision in Bart: Yes well, I actually saw the bookstore conversation and was at the same time rather from the outside. nosy. This in combination with his tendency to Peter: Oh, I see, I don’t think you followed give practical advice about almost everything he any of my advice did you? found important made conversation sometimes difficult. Here is an example: 8 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

The Houtlosser Dilemma The point was always rapidly taken in, and when By Erik C. W. Krabbe there was an exam question about it this used to be very well answered by most. Thus the name It was June 1991. The ARGA-CARGA Summer “Houtlosser” was spread even before Peter’s Institute in Argumentation at McMaster captivating contributions to argumentation theory University, Hamilton, Ontario, was in full were published. But it must be admitted that not session, the classroom filled with both students everyone remembered very well who Houtlosser and teachers. Among them the Dutch “AIOs” was. As I heard one student confess, after years: he (who didn’t like to be called students). Douglas had always thought that Houtlosser was the Walton had just shown that ad hominem director of the coal company! I am sure Peter arguments need not be fallacious. He must have would have loved this. presented some convincing cases, for, if I remember well, the balance was now tipping to With Peter to Koper the other side: ad hominem being perfectly By Jan Albert van Laar and Henrike Jansen alright. But then Peter Houtlosser intervened. What would happen to the director of a coal In November 2006 we went to the First company? How could this man defend any point Slovenian conference on Argumentation, of view about acid rain (a hot topic in those Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of days)? If he were to say that it was a serious Empowerment. We travelled together with problem, he would be mangled by a tu quoque Peter, which was a very amusing experience. attack (“you are producing acid rain yourself”). Already at Schiphol airport Peter managed to If he were to deny this he would face a evoke angry faces in the coffee corner where we devastating poisoning the well argument (“of were waiting to check in. Of course one is not course you think so, being the director of a coal allowed to smoke at Schiphol, as the three of us company”). Either way, this man would by an knew very well. However, in this coffee corner ad hominem argument be prevented from there were tables with a prohibition sign of putting forward a point of view that would be smoking and tables without such a sign. taken seriously in the discussion on acid rain. Coincidentally we were sitting at a table without Flouting the freedom rule in this way would a sign. We were just discussing the fact that make it impossible to resolve the difference of since some tables had a sign and others had not opinion. should mean – on the basis of an a contrario This was a good argument against too argument – that one is allowed to smoke at a lenient an attitude towards ad hominem and table without a sign. When the waitress came Peter stated it very forcefully. It made quite an with the coffee Peter told her, rather self- impression on Douglas Walton and on me, so satisfied, the result of our discussion. She was that we took it into account in our paper “It’s not amused, but we were! All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Before the Conference took place in Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks,” Informal Koper, the three of us spent one day in Logic 15 (1993, appeared 1994), 79-91. Of this Ljubljana. Peter had a book by Thomas Bernard paper, Section 3 (pp. 82-84) was devoted to an in his pocket, from which he quoted every analysis of the Houtlosser Dilemma. sentence that he liked. Many sentences have Also, the Houtlosser Dilemma became been proclaimed during that trip, long a fixed item of my classes in which ad hominem sentences, in German; we merely understood was discussed. So hundreds of students in half of it, but Peter was eager to translate. Groningen (courses “Logic 1” and “Reasoning We’ve learnt a lot from Peter during our and Arguing”) and dozens in Amsterdam sightseeing of Ljubljana, not only about (honors courses) saw either the Dutch or the Thoman Bernard and other authors from Central English version of the slide that depicted the Europe, but also about food, drinks, history and dilemma: of course strategic manoeuvring. Peter was invited to present a key note address. Speaking ad lib, he explained how the integration of rhetorical insights can improve the reconstruction of argumentative discourse in a justified manner. We were impressed by his speech, and it was especially delightful, and at one moment even moving, to hear Peter discourse about the dialectical and rhetorical ins and outs of a fragment, taken from LeCarré, where a father, leaving his son for a long time, tries to silence his son’s crying: “Do you love your old man? Well then.” Peter’s speech has

been recorded on video and you can attend it via: 9 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle http://debatevideoblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/le cture-argumentation-keynote-from-2006.html

“He’s always late” By Marcin Lewiński

It is one of the customs in Amsterdam that every other Friday or so, all the faculty members and students of the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, after having a Research Colloquium, a guest lecture, or a PhD meeting, are invited for drinks in one of the cafes around the university building. Peter was always the first to enforce a proper attendance at this informal gatherings by walking around the offices and making sure that everyone was willing and able to join. No excuse was accepted by him: even if you need to submit your dissertation tomorrow, he would say, you can’t skip the drinks tonight. On one of such occasions, after assuring him I was going to join very shortly, I kept dawdling with gathering my papers and shutting down the PC, being sure that everyone had gone already. When I finally left the office and approached the elevator I saw Peter blocking its door, patiently waiting for me. Jammer hè? “He’s always late” he said to the others standing By Bert Meuffels inside of the elevator, an ironic yet so amicable smile on his face. I apologised, and denied I was as bad as the guy in the famous Velvet Peter had some strange and peculiar habits: for Underground song ‘I’m Waiting for the Man’ example, his persistent way of asking difficult which Peter, as I guessed, had just partly and basic questions to the presenter of a paper at quoted: “He’s never early, he’s always late, symposia, research colloquia or conferences on First thing you learn is that you always gotta argumentation theory was one of his many wait.” He indeed had this song in mind, and a legendary acts. Quite often the presenter got long chat about his musical taste ensued, really mad, but for the critical audience it was proving his insight into music was no worse evident that here a scholar with a profound than the one he had into argumentation theory knowledge of the field was speaking, and or literature. questioning. It was not, however, the first time I Peter’s strange, idiosyncratic way of heard Peter using the “he’s always late” line. If holding a conversation was not restricted to the elevator incident was a friendly admonition scientific discourse; it generalized to of a late PhD student, the other occasion shows conversations about his other beloved activities Peter’s famous dark humour. Just over a year like reading and walking. When discussing the ago we had dinner at our place with, among qualities of a certain book (Peter loved reading others, Peter and Frans van Eemeren. Frans was literature, especially the novels of little known in the middle of a story about their past East European literary men), he came very close academic visits to the US, mentioning “the late to you (violating all the politeness principles of professor” of rhetoric they still had a chance to ordinary conversations), with a big irresistible meet back then. Peter, apparently referring to smile on his face, exclaiming: “Mooi hè? [It’s “the late professor,” immediately added: “he’s beautiful, isn’t it?]. For me as a conversational always late.” Or, maybe, in written form: “he’s partner, it was simply impossible to doubt the always ‘late’.” This pun, obviously intended, acceptability of that standpoint that was was nevertheless innocuous and could easily physically advanced with his whole body, let pass unnoticed. alone to advance and defend a different one. What cannot, however, easily pass And when you agreed with him – there was no unnoticed is that Peter, as we know, has never other choice: you had to agree - he inevitably been late. went on in his enthusiasm, asking you a lot of questions about a lot of other books of the same author, and in the end you had to admit: “Sorry, but I don’t know that book”, leaving you with the embarrassing feeling that you had really 10 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle missed something essential in your life. At least … and so many other specialty shops here and for me it was evident that the extent of Peter’s there. reading was enormous, as was the case with his I can still see the sparkle in his eyes knowledge of the field of argumentation theory. whenever he would remember another of these Peter was not only a lover of literature, old-fashioned shops, like he was happy to call he was also a passionate walker going regularly them. There was something special in each, on journeys walking through the Dutch and some charm in the small details of humans European countryside – needless to say that his interacting as they sell and buy. And there is knowledge of the different roads and footpaths beauty in the simple way you connect to a place in Europe was as extensive as that in the field of when you find your own special old-fashioned argumentation theory and of literature. After our corners in it… holidays, we usually discussed our travel I pass by A.Bok & Zonen everyday in my experiences during the last weeks (Peter on feet, way to university. myself by car), and most of the time we discovered a common footpath or a route “Good question!” somewhere in a remote place of Europe we both By José Plug knew. Then it was Peter’s turn: “Did you see that church etc.”, bending his head a little bit, There has been a VIOT-conference every three big smile on his face, approaching you to just a years, ever since 1979. These conferences usually few inches, saying: “Prachtig hè? [It’s take place in the Netherlands, and every once in a magnificent, isn’t it?]. Luckily and with big while abroad, in Belgium. The 1990-VIOT relief, this time I hadn’t overlooked that conference was organized in Groningen. Since this curiosity so I could overtly enjoy our joint was to be my first contribution, I was already experiences, hoping Peter wouldn’t go on with pretty nervous long before the conference had even asking more questions I was unable to answer. started. Peter’s lecture had been scheduled on the Of course, that hope was idle: as we all know, first day of the conference and was titled when Peter was asking questions, it was just Standpoints in a Pragma-dialectical Perspective. impossible to stop him in his enthusiasm. Most In those days I did not yet really know Peter very of the time our conversation about our holidays well; he worked in Amsterdam and I worked at the ended with my painful resignation that I Erasmus University in Rotterdam. I did, however, regrettably had missed something that was know that he had planned to write a thesis on really worth seeing. standpoints. Peter’s lecture proved to be quite a We in the department, we all miss our complicated story entailing all kinds of distinctions colleague Peter – we miss his intellectual which were hard to follow, at least in my eyes. In curiosity, his innovative theoretical reality they may have been not quite as hard to contributions to the field and his peculiar, follow as I imagined at that time. I assume my enthusiastic way of holding conversations. nerves were playing tricks on me and made it When somebody would ask us after our feelings impossible for me to truly concentrate on what in respect of his early pass away, we would Peter was actually saying. Unfortunately my nerves simply say: “Jammer hè? [It’s a pity, isn’t it?]. did not prevent me from asking a question. I had the audacity to inform after the function of all these The charm of the old-fashioned distinctions and wondered aloud about the practical By Dima Mohammed implications of what he was doing. Peter said something to the effect that he thought that this was Every time I see A.Bok & Zonen, I think of a ‘’good question’’ and that he would need some Peter. It is a paint shop at the end of time to answer it. The irony of his retort was not Bloemgracht, on the left side where the sun hits lost on me. Afterwards I felt genuinely late in the afternoon; an old-fashioned embarrassed about asking such ill-informed specialised paint shop, where you can buy all questions. I did manage to steer clear of Peter after kinds of paint, brushes and anything else you that unhappy incident until the day of Erik might need if you want to paint. It was with so Krabbe’s ‘Quod erat demonstrandum’-lecture. much fascination and almost with pride that During his presentation, Erik had, to prove a point, Peter explained to me about A.Bok & Zonen, struck up his version of the Beatles-classic when we passed by it on a Friday afternoon. In ‘Yesterday’. During the ensuing laughter and post- the same way he had also explained about Cave lecture chit-chat, the smokers among us naturally van Kef on Marnixtraat, which had become run flocked together. That was a perfect moment, or so by Frank and Marike, and where you could still I thought, to elucidate my intentions as to my buy some special French cheese and wine; insipid question at the time. Peter insisted that he Ensink on Haarlemmerdijk where you could get no idea what I was talking about and that his some of the best imported sausages; the French answer had, on the contrary, not been meant to butcher in The Hague where you could speak sound ironical at all. I found it hard to believe what French when buying the real saucisse de Lyon he said. Only after I had come to know Peter better, it dawned upon me that he was not someone to 11 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle dismiss questions as being ridiculous. In much the until 2 in the morning about everything from same way that he found it very hard to imagine speech acts to Johnny Cash and I knew that someone would criticize his questions. though Peter was still intimidating – he after all still knew everything about everything – that I had found a new and good friend.

From student to colleague: My years with Peter By Agnès van Rees

It was in the early eighties that I first got to know Peter, when he was a student of mine in the second year course of the Speech Communication curriculum. Already then, some of the characteristics typical of him manifested themselves. His undiluted enthusiasm for ideas, in the first place. He immediately saw the qualities of speech act theory and eagerly drank in the details. At the same time, a second characteristic became manifest: his inclination towards fearless critical scrutiny. This second- year student wrote a term paper criticizing Searle’s theory about the transference of ‘ought’ to ‘is’! And an excellent paper it was. In writing this paper, incidentally, two more of his personality traits became clear: his penchant for precision and his tenacity.

Later on, I had the pleasure of serving Who's Afraid of Peter Houtlosser? as Peter’s co-promotor. It was a mixed pleasure, By Leah Polcar at first: In the beginning, his desire for precision

and his love for detail turned against him; they When I was here at UvA as a visiting lecturer in made him want to put every reservation and 2000, a small group of staff would usually go every nuance into one and the same sentence, out to dinner on Friday evenings. Peter always obscuring any idea he might have had. In attended these dinners, but then I did not know addition, his tenacity threatened to turn into him well and I must admit, though he was obstinacy. But eventually, the productive side always kind to me and encouraged conversation, of these characteristics took over. Frans and I I was pretty intimidated by him and was too were very proud of him for the outstanding frightened to talk directly with him. He was dissertation he eventually delivered. always so knowledgeable about everything – And then I had the good fortune to be including American bluegrass music, a topic I able to get to know Peter as a colleague, and was sure I had to know more about, though I still other aspects of his personality transpired. was proven quite wrong – and, being Peter, His undaunted loyalty, for one. Loyalty to pretty strong in his convictions. One particular the people that he admired and to the ideas these Friday, no one was able to attend the dinner people stood for (and for which he admired besides Peter and yours truly. I was scared out them, in the first place, once they had passed the of my wits thinking that I would never be able rigorous test of his analytical mind). He did not to make conversation and surely this evening tire of defending these ideas in front of would turn out to be a disaster. However, during everyone who wanted to listen and to criticize dinner, Peter introduced the topic of pedophilia fiercely what he perceived to be and began immediately to stir up controversy by misunderstandings and misrepresentations. He taking-up some rather extreme positions on this was not one to go along with the fashions and topic. I was so shocked that I started to argue follies of the day, but steadfastly stayed with back, forgetting my fear, luckily for me. After what he found of value. And, getting to know dinner, he said that we must get a drink to him closer, I learned that his loyalty and continue our discussion and led me through the enthusiasm did not only extend to people and red-light district pointing out interesting ideas, but also to things – the beauty of a well- architecture, giving me a Dutch history lesson, made table, the elegance of a glass bowl – , and eventually bringing me to a small café close landscapes – the Belgian Voerstreek, where he to Centraal Station where he knew the owner loved to hike – , and cities – Amsterdam in the and the history of the café. He told me he first place, naturally, but also Vienna, especially liked it there as it played a nice Regensburg. And, of course, to good food and selection of American country music. We talked drink (he was an accomplished cook himself). 12 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

I admired Peter’s acuity and mastery of will be. His immediate and natural reaction to the theory, the finer points of which we often that e-mail showed me that he was someone debated. I could test my own ideas by who genuinely cares. His informal way of submitting them to his intelligent inspection. I dealing with my first month’s frustrations in that enjoyed his sharp irony and his stoical bright first long meeting in his office showed me how temper. And I feel fortunate that I could catch generous he was in taking time to listen and to the warm glint of friendship in his dark-blue discuss with his students. His joke about it a few eyes and share his enthusiasm over objects of months later, prepared me for the distinct sense beauty, gloomy novels, hiking, good food and of humour that was typical of him. In the years drink. Finally, I am very happy that he and I still that I had the chance to have him as tutor, I have had the time to jointly produce the book in learnt from him that engaging wholeheartedly in Frans’s honor which he proposed to make, research can be a rewarding endeavour mainly before we knew anything was amiss. because it gives you the opportunity to come across interesting and fine people to whom you “I am Rodie Risselada” can communicate more than just the results of By Francisca Snoeck Henkemans your research.

I first met Peter when he was a student in one of A present for Peter my courses. I remember how intelligent he was, By Jean Wagemans but also how stubborn. The discussion of his paper took hours, and he was still not convinced. Peter is one of the few people I have known that you could have a quarrel with while having dinner in a restaurant about the best approach to fallacies, or whether the critical questions for different types of argumentation should form part of the pragma-dialectical procedure of dispute resolution or not. The strange thing is, that while Peter was on the one hand very confident and always thought that he was right (which he often was), he was on the other hand often very uncertain and thought himself unfit and too eccentric for all sorts of When I visited Peter in hospital, I brought him social occasions. One time he came to a large this drawing by Solko Schalm. It is a visual conference on discourse markers where I was representation of the concept ‘strategic already present, and I saw him introduce manoeuvring’, inspired by the iconography of himself to a woman by saying: “I am Rodie dialectic and rhetoric as two of the artes Risselada”. The woman thought it quite a liberales. I gave him this present to thank him coincidence that they both had the same name. for introducing me into the field of argumentation theory, for being my teacher and Caring, Generous, Tease supervisor, for all the discussions we had about By Assimakis Tseronis ‘strategic manoeuvring’, and – most of all – for

being a wonderful person. He took a closer look Peter was assigned as my mentor during my at the drawing, and I expected him to say M.A. studies. I did not attend a lecture by him something like: ‘Thanks, but don’t you know until the second semester but I was already that it’s impossible to thank someone for being struck by his caring and engaging attitude right a particular type of person!’ He would have from the start. In the first month trying to been right, for giving such answers made Peter a orientate myself in the courses on offer and to type of his own. Instead, he smiled and said catch up with the readings as well as trying to ‘Beautiful!’ get used to living as a foreign student in Amsterdam, I was confused. Peter happened to send me a brief e-mail in his capacity as a mentor asking me how things were going. I instantly replied with quite an extensive story, detailing the problems and confusions I was facing in that first month. He replied suggesting that we should meet as soon as possible and discuss, which we did. Some months later, Peter reminded me of this exchange of e-mails, jokingly saying that in the future he should be cautious when asking me how things are going, since he cannot be sure how long my answer 13 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

Before you started this dissertation, did you AN HOUR WITH PETER know that there had hardly been anything written on the identification of standpoints? Interview conducted with Bilal Amjarso on Tuesday 25th October 2005 and published in the 1st issue of the 2nd My Master’s thesis was also on the identification volume of the Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle, of standpoints but focused on the French linguistic which was sent out on December 2005 theory of Ascombre and Ducrot and examined to what extent their insights into words such as Amjarso: Welcome to this interview. Let’s start ‘even’, ‘yet’, and some other words could be with your student days: did it ever occur to you helpful in identifying standpoints. So I was already that you would one day become an concerned with that subject, and then when I argumentation scholar? Were there any clues? started my dissertation, I had to describe the state of the art in the literature on the subject. I then Houtlosser: Well, it depends on what point in my found out, however, that obviously nobody used student life you are talking about. My student days this term. People talked about beliefs, ideas, began in 1976. I studied for three and a half years attitudes, views, but the term standpoint is really a and then interrupted my study because I did not pragma-dialectical term. Together with my two like it. I did not feel at home at the university in supervisors, I decided that, by making a terms of the intellectual and cultural climate at that comparison between the concept of standpoint and time. I was not up to it. I was too young, as I all these other concepts that are used in the reconstructed later. Then I started working, and literature on argumentation, on reasoning, on soon I came to work at the opera. I was a carpenter persuasion, and on belief revision, and so on, the for five years, making the decoration for the Dutch the concept of a standpoint would be elucidated opera, but I was not so good at that. One day, my and better defined. The second part of the thesis girlfriend Nora said, “I was informed that your could then be about the identification of university grades are still valid, so you could return standpoints proper. So this is how it started, but to university and continue your study in Dutch even at that time I was not sure whether I would be language and Literature”. I thought, well, I should an argumentation theorist in the professional sense do that then. I was still not so well motivated, but because writing a dissertation is no guarantee that once I returned there and did my first class, I saw you have a position at the university and that you that the people had changed and I was older, more will spend the rest of your professional life on mature and I really liked what was being taught, argumentation theory. After I had defended my both literature and linguistics, as well as speech thesis in 1995 and a few months of teaching here, communication. So I really felt that this time it was however, I got a post-doctoral position, subsidized not just something that I had to complete to not by the National Science Foundation (NWO), and spoil the rest of my life, but I really liked it. It soon that was a position for three years. After that, I was turned out that at some things I was even rather a faculty fellow for half a year, and then I got a good, in particular at speech communication and tenure track position. Only then I believed that I argumentation theory. My first class was with was indeed an argumentation theorist! Agnès van Rees. I made a paper in her class that she found very good, and I was delighted about You started your academic career by that, and then I read the book that Frans van investigating the concept of standpoint. And Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst wrote, Speech Acts then, all of a sudden, you (together with Frans in Argumentative Discussions, and I found it a very van Eemeren) are associated with the concept of good book. I also read many more books than were strategic maneuvering. How did the idea of on the program list. I was in the library all day strategic maneuvering first come about? reading philosophy of language introductions and books by Searle and so on. I really got an interest Strategic maneuvering is something that Frans van in the philosophy of language and continued my Eemeren and I developed, and how we got studies doing courses with philosophy, three involved with strategic maneuvering is that at the courses or so besides the speech communication end of 1995 Frans’ idea was that rhetoric, as a program, and then, together with speech discipline that studied argumentation from a communication, courses in argumentation. I was different perspective than dialectics, should in already on my way to becoming an argumentation some or other way play a role in our theorizing, theorist. Still, I had never dreamed that I would be and that it would be a good idea if we would work good enough to get a PhD position, which was then together on this project and try to see how called AIO. With the help of Frans, however, I rhetorical insight could be included in the managed to write a really good application to pragmadialectical theory. There were a couple of become an AIO, and it was accepted, and on concrete reasons for that. First, although there was September 1, 1989, I started working on my already a considerable set of tools and theoretical dissertation. insight to make it possible for an analyst to give a good and justified analysis of argumentative texts, it would add to the possibility of justifying the 14 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle analysis if you would also include rhetorical insight Well, the rules have not been prescriptive in the in the justification, that is, knowledge of why first place. They are rules that you follow if you people say the things that they are saying, instead would like to critically test the tenability of a of only being able to point out only what they are standpoint by resolving a difference of opinion saying from an argumentative perspective. Take about this standpoint, and each of the parties may, the example “Can we get a move on?” You know in our conception of strategic maneuvering, do intuitively that there is something in this discourse their best to make the moves that would advance like an opinion that “We should move on.” We can his or her own case in this testing process, but of account for that in the analysis, and Searlean and course in doing their best to win the discussion the Gricean insight will give you the tools to account arguers may go too far and violate one or more of for it, so that’s one step, but another step is that you the discussion rules. Then their maneuvering, we would like to know why people don’t say, “We say, has derailed, is no longer sound and is should move on,” but ask this rhetorical question, therefore condemnable for that, so the rules play “Can we get a move on?” in order to present the the same role that they have always played. They standpoint that “We should move on.” And we prevent or prohibit people from going about thought that kind of information why people say arguing in a certain way—you could say, in a too the argumentative things that they say, in the way rhetorical way—that is not allowed by the norms of they say them to this opponent, could be recovered a critical discussion. Including rhetorical from rhetoric, and that is why we thought that considerations means acknowledging that people including rhetorical insight in the analysis of do things to win the discussion, but that does not argumentative discourse would be of help. It took imply in any way that you have to give up the idea us some time and real thinking to come up with the that they are at the same time constrained in their right way, and then in the end we got to this behavior by the rules for critical discussion, so I concept of strategic maneuvering which allowed us don’t understand how anyone could think that the to include rhetorical insights in such a way that we pragma-dialectical rules are now obsolete or that said that all the parties involved in argumentative the theory has become less normative or whatever. discussions will not only try to resolve their dispute in a way that is in accordance with the standards of So far the concept of strategic maneuvering has critical discussion but also to decide the dispute in only been investigated theoretically and their own favor. All the things that they have to do analytically. But at least the coming few years to comply with the critical standards can also be will know the rise of some empirical research done in their own favor, so they can maneuver into strategic maneuvering. In what way, do you strategically. If they have, for instance, according think, the empirical work will support the to the procedure of the critical discussion, to theoretical views you have been endorsing about present a standpoint, then what could be rhetorical it so far. is that the standpoint is presented in such a way that the speaker, the arguer, thinks that he can I think you should reverse the issue. I think the defend it well. interesting issue will be how much light applying this theory will shed on empirical practices, for instance that of the so-called avdertorials. A student of ours once looked at an advertorial that KLM published when they had destroyed a couple of hundreds of squirrels in a machine by which you destroy chickens because there was no license to have those squirrels imported into the country. KLM was blamed for that of course by the committee for the protection of animals, and by the common public as well. They tried to repair the damage by publishing an advertorial in which they explained that they were not to be blamed in the end. The theory of strategic maneuvering has in that case proven to shed considerable light on not only how the authors are being rhetorical in this The rhetorical part of the theory has now advertorial—as a rhetorical theory could have become so noticeable that one may start done—but also how they try at least to keep up the thinking that pragma-dialectics has started pretence of being reasonable in that text. Every giving up some of its normative elements. I can application supports the theory to such an extent easily imagine someone saying, “Well, since it’s that it shows that it is a theory that can do some no longer strictly about observing or violating work in practice. the rules, then what’s the role of the prescriptive rules?” Prescriptive rules must be obsolete for This academic year has been opened by the this matter. publishing of a book: Argumentatieve Indicatoren in het Nederlands, co-authored by 15 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

Frans van Eemeren, Francisca Snoeck of the things we are dealing with. So it’s a good Henkemans and yourself, written in Dutch. book for, for instance, students who want to write a What was the main incentive to write a book on Master’s thesis. Of course, most of our Master indicators of argumentation, and what will its students are nowadays non-Dutch speaking contribution be in view of the whole students. This means that the book should first be pragmadialectical program? translated into English. Perhaps, there is someone around who speaks both Dutch and English very The book was, in fact, a continuation of an interest well, like you, so that this person could translate it. in strengthening the analysis from a pragmatic There have, by the way, been books written in the point of view, with the help of linguistic insight. pragma-dialectical school, in Dutch, which have a There is insight from the philosophy of language, much more practical significance like, for instance, Gricean and Searlean pragmatics, but there is also Argumenteren voor Juristen (Arguing for law more purely linguistic insight. We used insight students). This book is used in courses taught to from the French linguists Anscombre and Ducrot, lawyers and to people in companies. In fact, and from Anglo-Saxon scholars like Kay and everyone in the Netherlands who wants to become others. We thought it would be worthwhile to be a judge has to take a course in argumentation in able to say more about words and expressions, such which Argumenteren voor Juristen is used. The as ‘because’, ‘therefore’, that could obviously also book was written in the eighties and has known be indicators of argumentation as such, but also of many reprints. It was written by Frans van other moves that are relevant to resolving a dispute, Eemeren, Eveline Feteris, Rob Grootendorst, Jose like indicators of standpoint, indicators of Plug, Harm Kloosterhuis and some others. It is a advancing or proposing a starting point, indicators very popular book. Perhaps you can give that book of conclusions, indicators of argumentation to your friend. structures, indicators of argumentation schemes that arguers use—all in view of being able to come I have a remark about the Indicators book and up with a stronger and better justified analysis of also about the Systematic Theory book. The the discourse. To give an example, ‘because’ is a element of strategic maneuvering remains, word that can point at an argumentation but can against my expectations, absent from both also point at an explanation. “I am sure he will books. Why? come because he told me yesterday” is more liable to be an argumentation than “He is home today Because A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, to because his wife phones to tell me that he is ill.” begin with, is a representation of the standard This will be something more like an explanation of pragma-dialectical theory as it was developed by “why he’s home today.” In both cases, ‘because’ is Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. That’s used. Now it’s interesting to know under which it, and they together did not develop the concept of conditions ‘because’ points at an argumentation strategic maneuvering. There are some footnotes and under which conditions it points at an which announce that later on in other publications explanation. This is just one example. So, a better the element of rhetoric will also be addressed and insight in the possibilities of use of these words can that it will add to the analytical and evaluative strengthen the analysis. Our theory allows us not to strength of the theory, but is not yet included in be just interested in argumentation as such but in that book simply because its authors did not all the moves that constitute a critical discussion. develop the concept of strategic maneuvering. All the moves taking place within a critical Something different goes for the Indicators book, discussion have their proper indicators. because we started writing that book when Frans and I had not yet developed this concept of I lent the book to a friend of mine who is strategic maneuvering, and once we were considering a career as a lawyer. I had the developing it, we thought we should in the impression that by including a great number of Indicators book keep our focus on the dialectical examples the book must be of great practical meaning that these indicator words could have in significance for him, but he had a look at it and the resolution process. then he said, “This is too theoretical!” To what The strategic aspects of using such words extent have you succeeded in reaching audiences would come later, and this is what is in part, in with practical interests in argumentation? fact, already happening. Makis Tseronis will write a dissertation about the strategic use of indicators This book is not in the first place meant for people of standpoints that I have also dealt with in my with a practical interest. It is a book that is meant own dissertation. If someone, for instance, says, “I for students of argumentation, and although it is to believe that I should not do this,” then I say there a great extent observational, it is still too are indications that this utterance could be theoretical, as your friend said, to have direct functioning as a standpoint—of course, depending practical interest. On the other hand, because it is on the context and so on—because the author says largely observational, it is good material for ‘I believe’ and he says ‘should’. Now, Makis will students with a linguistic background and interest deal with the same expressions, ‘I believe that,’ because it gives more in-depth linguistic analyses and similar expressions, but find out why people 16 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle would use these words when presenting a “51 years-old – what a waste – such a sweet and standpoint, what it does to their burden proof, for gifted person who was still so very young.” instance, whether they perhaps weaken their Mieke Bal burden of proof by creating the possibility of later saying, “Oh no, I only said that I believed it. I did “I will always think back, with pleasure, on the not assert it.” When writing the Indicators book, time he advised my thesis and the smart and our idea was that you cannot do all at the same critical jokes that he would always make.” time. You can of course, but we did not. Janneke Belt

“I remember Peter as a nice, smart and helpful TRIBUTES FOR PETER person with a good sense of humour, and I will HOUTLOSSER always remember him with warmth.” Lilit Brutian

“I wish I had a chance to tell Peter what a great teacher he was and he had a great impact on my intellect.” Carol Chung Chi Wa

“I had the opportunity to realize, in the occasions we met and corresponded, the special person Peter was – the kind of person and colleague one should not lose so early.” Marcelo Dascal

“I will always remember Peter as a distinguished scholar and an enquiring mind, but above all as a helpful and kind person.” Kamila Debowska

“He was such a kind and interesting person, and such a wonderful scholar. I think that both sides of the Atlantic will miss him greatly.” Inga Dolinina

Upon hearing the news of Peter’s death, Peter’s “I consider myself fortunate to have met him friends, former students and colleagues outside the and I will always remember him as a truly department of Speech communication, brilliant and brave man.” Argumentation theory and Rhetoric did not hesitate to Isabela Ietcu Fairclough convey how sad they were to hear the news and how greatly they admired Peter Houtlosser. Here’s a “I remember him especially for his unfailing selection of what many of them had to say. cheerfulness; he was always a pleasure to be with, so I am very sad to think that there will be “Among the things I will remember is the way no more fun conversations with him.” Peter would cross his legs, fold his arms and Alec Fisher scrutinize every word one said when making an academic point and the web of implications that “Peter was such good company. I always valued were spun out. He would point his finger and his sense of humor, absent-mindedness, and the then begin with some very pointed questions fact he never took himself too seriously.” that could be excruciatingly difficult to Charles Forceville maneuver out of or otherwise answer without succumbing to his obvious point. Of course, that “I will always remember Peter as one of the pointed finger would later turn to a hand most agreeable and merriest persons I have ever holding a glass of wine and the pointed met.” questions to charm, wit, and what I always took Anca Gata to be a mischievous-sense-of-fun.” Mark Aakhus “I always found Peter to be a remarkably kind person. Occasionally, he would serve as a “The little I knew of Peter personally, he was second-reader on theses I was advising and bright, enthusiastic, and warm.” sometimes he had to deal with students who Jonathan Adler weren’t really suitable to write theses. Nonetheless, he always showed remarkable 17 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle compassion to these students and expended a lot (though not always in his questioning during of energy to make sure the students overcame colloquia!).” their difficulties and finished successfully. I Alex Goodson remember one student in particular whom he handled wonderfully.” “It is indeed very sad news that Peter had to Rudolf Geel pass-away at such a young age.” Jan Reijer Groesbeek “I didn’t know Peter, but do know from what I have heard that he was an unusually loved, “Unfortunately, I never was able to take a class enthusiastic, and professional man.” from Peter when I was a student. However, I Lia van Gemert did get to know him a little around the time of the 1994 ISSA conference. I remember still that “I was very fond of Peter, and will miss him.” I was so impressed with how much organization Michael Gilbert it took to plan such a large conference and that Peter was constantly busy organizing 30 things “He was a wonderful colleague.” at once, yet was able to keep a cool head.” Paul Gillaerts Albert Goutbeek

“In our conversations, Peter shared with me his “It is very sad that Peter had to die so young… wonderful sense of humour and a love and Peter's presence will surely be missed.” enjoyment of life. He shared with me his Trudy Govier wisdom and passion for a discipline to which we were both devoted. I consider myself quite “It is very difficult to actually realise that Peter blessed for having known Peter, and having had is no longer among us… Only time may the chance to work with him.” eventually help to heal the wounds of the David Godden soul…and the nice memories of the moments spent in Peter's company.” “Peter was a light in our lives. Warm, humane, Cornelia Ilie with a wonderful wit. He is missed, and will always be so. I treasure the time I spent with “Peter’s death is a great loss for our field.” him in various places and parts of the world.” Ton van Haaften Thomas Goodnight “Peter enjoyed everything so easily and had such enthusiasm for his work. I never knew much about the personal side of his life, but I have little trouble imagining that he was positive and energetic there, too.” Dale Hample

“I learned a lot from him about the pragma- dialectical approach and also about his interesting personal background as a carpenter making sets for the theatre... He displayed an admirable calmness of spirit in the face of his inevitable death. He was not casting about for some sort of miraculous cure that the medical establishment was for some inexplicable reason concealing from cancer patients, but seemed content to accept life, and death, as they came… Peter was a fine human being.” David Hitchcock

“He was a moving spirit for Pragma-Dialectics and I knew him as an enthusiastic, dedicated and patient but demanding teacher as well as an attentive and humorous person. He taught me to think critically and argue precisely.” Sarah Hitzler “I am aware of the substantial contributions Peter made to the department, as an academic “I knew few people who combined such a nice and individual. I had the pleasure of being in his personality with such an extraordinary intellect company on only several occasions, but I and I will miss the conversations with him.” always found him genial and welcoming Michael Hoppmann 18 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

“Peter was dear to us too, and we are already “Peter has left us in the flowering of his human missing him… His personal courage and and scientific maturity, and too early… I have dedication to his work inspired everything always felt in him, beside an extraordinary scholarly that I have done in the past few sensitiveness and friendship capacity, a strong years.” passion for our common scientific interests.” Sally Jackson Eddo & Rachele Rigotti

“It is a sad day when we lose such a gifted and “I am greatly saddened by his death, yet I also courageous friend and colleague.” feel grateful that I had the opportunity to know Ralph H. Johnson and befriend such a sharp scholar and likable, friendly and thoughtful person as he was.” “Peter was not only a distinguished Andrea Rocci argumentation scholar, but also a nice person and an interesting dialogue partner outside of “I will keep in my heart the memory of all the his field of expertise.” gifts Peter has and of the person he was.” Manfred Kienpointner Sara Rubinelli

“What another special person to have lost.” “Peter was the best teacher I've ever had, and Joost Kircz that I'll never forget the help and support he gave to his students.” “Peter was a good man, and a dear friend.” Liisa Salmela Geoffrey D. Klinger “We will remember Peter as a sharp-witted and “Peter was a highly distinguished person and as nice colleague who was always willing to tear a researcher he certainly was an inspiration to down the walls and have speech communication me. He was always ready for an academic studies recognized as an important discipline.” conversational battle and he could always Ted Sanders “answer any question”. He was truly a serious conversational partner – he was (rightly) critical “No matter how expected it was, it is still a hard and was always willing to talk more about ideas. loss to take. I have always admired Peter for his Peter was always available to answer any no-nonsense manner and the firm convictions question we students had – no matter what other that he showed in defending his ideas. Of work he was at that moment doing.” course, over the last few years he has been Leon Laurey admirable in other ways.” Christopher Tindale “I will not only miss him because he was an excellent colleague, but also a warm, friendly, “I only had the opportunity to meet Peter one and humble person.” time, yet I remember him a kind and fiery guy. Michiel Leezenberg Fifty-one years old is far too young to die and his early passing makes his loss that much more “He was obviously dealing with a lot, yet, in sad.” spite of that remained always happy and Claudio Verwer friendly where most people would have become bitter and harsh.” “Oh, that Peter, he could be so cheerful with all Frank Ligtvoet of his crazy expressions and sayings. What fun we had together!” “When I saw the announcement in the Erik Viskil newspaper announcing Peter’s death, it was expected, but I was still struck that a person so “We will all miss Peter greatly. He was such a full of life and who I still think of as so full of nice man, and a valued colleague.” life, was no longer here.” Douglas Walton Marita Mathijsen-Verkooijen “Really, the loss of Peter is a loss to everyone “He talked about the fact that we are lucky to he knew as he was wonderful, kind, and a warm have the opportunity of study, research, and friend as well as an important scholar… When I teach, and that this awareness should overcome think about Peter the picture of him I see in my all moments of difficulty and tiredness. It is mind is always smiling. One of the things I only a small episode among the many memories appreciated most about him was his wit and you will have about Peter.” sense of humor. Conferences just aren’t the Sara & Carlo Morasso same without him there smiling, laughing, and good naturedly teasing Scott (my favourite part).” Harry Weger 19 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

“Peter was truly one of the good guys, and I will January 2008. The conference, organised by miss him.” The Centre for the Study of Argumentation of David Cratis Williams the Faculty of Human Sciences and Education, attracted a number of argumentation scholars from around the world. Plenary speakers of the conference were Frans van Eemeren, Ralph Johnson and Maria Marta García Negroni.

Frans van Eemeren as guest lecturer at the Diego Portales University and the University of Koper

On January 15th, 2008, Frans van Eemeren was guest lecturer at the Center for Argumentation Studies of Diego Portales University in Santiago, Chile. The title of this lecture was ‘Fallacies as violations of rules for critical discusion’. From 15 to 17 April he was invited panel speaker and guest lecturer at the University of Koper. During the panel coordinated together with Marina Sbisa, Frans van Eemeren gave a lecture entitled ‘The relationship between the ideas of Austin, Searle and Grice and pragma-dialectics’. On April 16 and 17, Frans van Eemeren presented two guest lectures entitled ‘The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation’ and ‘The extended pragma-

dialectical theory’.

NEWS ASCA has a new academic director

On January 31st, Mireille Rosello was Perelman and beyond Conference held in Tel inaugurated as the new academic director of the Aviv Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis

(ASCA), thereby succeeding Willem Westeijn. An International Conference on ‘Perelman and Senior and junior members of ASCA attended beyond: From the Rhetorical Tradition to the special ceremony to welcome the new Argumentation Studies’ was held at Tel Aviv president and to bid farewell to Willem University from 7 to 9 January 2008. This Westeijn. conference was organised on the occasion of the th 50 anniversary of Perelman's New Rhetoric. A Conference on Strategies in Argumentation treatise of Argumentation's and aimed to held in Groningen explore the impact of the New Rhetoric on contemporary scholarship. The conference, The conference on Strategies in argumentation which was organized in collaboration with was held on 14 and 15 February, 2008, at the Noemi Mattis Perelman, the Chaim Perelman University of Groningen. The conference was Foundation in Brussels and the Louise and Dr. organised by the Faculty of Philosophy in Nahum Lectures on French Culture and honour of Erik Krabbe and attracted a host of Rhetoric, attracted a host of internationally argumentation theorists from different countries. recognized scholars in the field of rhetoric and Keynote speakers of the conference argumentation studies. Among the speakers at were Frans van Eemeren, Douglas Walton and this conference were Emanuelle Danblon, John Woods. Among the participants in this Marcelo Dascal, Marianne Doury, Michael Leff, conference were Corina Andone, Anthony Blair, Christian Plantin and Francisca Snoeck Eveline Feteris and Harm Kloosterhuis, Henrike Henkemans. Jansen, Dima Mohammed and Jean Wagemans.

The conference was concluded with a The Logic, Argumentation and Critical valedictory lecture given by Erik Krabbe. Thinking Conference held in Santiago

The Logic, Argumentation and Critical Thinking Conference was held at the Diego Portales University in Santiago, Chile, from 8 to 11 20 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

The 2nd International Conference on The 12th Wake Forest Argumentation Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Conference held in Venice Pedagogy of Empowerment took place in Ljubljana The 12th Wake Forest Argumentation Conference took place at Wake’s Casa Arton in The Second International Conference on Venice from 16 to 18 June, 2008. The Argumentation, Debate and the Pedagogy of conference was co-hosted by Michael Hazen Empowerment took place in Ljubljana, and David Williams. This biennial event Slovenia, between 11 and 13 April, 2008. The attracted a number of internationally recognized conference attracted scholars with various argumentation scholars. specialisations related to argumentation theory, On the first day of the conference, rhetoric and debate. Among the presenters in the Frans van Eemeren gave a plenary lecture argumentation panel of this conference were entitled ‘Be reasonable! Responding Bilal Amjarso, Corina Andone, Lillian Bermejo constructively to fallacious argumentative Luque, Michael Hoppmann, Paul van den moves’. Hoven, Constanza Ihnen, Marcin Lewinski, Roosmaryn Pilgram, Cristián Santibáñez Yáñez ASCA book award 2007 for Argumentative and David Williams. Bart Garssen, who was Indicators expected to present at the conference, had to cancel his presentation because of an accident. Argumentative Indicators: A Pragma- Keynote speakers of this conference Dialectical Study, authored by Frans van were Frans van Eemeren in the argumentation Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser and Francisca division, Omar Salahuddin bin Abdullah in the Snoeck Henkemans and published by Springer, debate division, and Kate Shuster in the is to win the ASCA book award 2007. This pedagogy division. monograph is based on the authors’ Dutch book entitled Argumentatieve Indicatoren in het Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue Nederlands. Een Pragma-dialectische Studie, Conference held in Milan. which was published in 2006. Argumentative Indicators identifies Word Meaning in Argumentative Dialogue and analyses English words and expressions that Conference was held at the Università Cattolica are crucial for an adequate reconstruction of del Sacro Cuore in Milan from 15 to 17 May, argumentative discourse. It provides the analyst 2008. The conference was organized by the of argumentative discussions and texts with a International Association for Dialogue Analysis systematic set of instruments for giving a well- (IADA). Plenary speeches were given by founded analysis which results in an analytic Marcelo Dascal, Frans van Eemeren, Franz overview of the elements that are relevant for Hundsnurscher, Cornelia Ilie, Eddo Rigotti, the evaluation of the argumentation. In the book Andrea Rocci and Edda Weigand. a systematic connection is made between linguistic insights into the characteristics of Fourth NWO Conference on Stylistic argumentative discourse and insights from Characteristics of Strategic Manoeuvring in argumentation theory into the resolution of Argumentative Confrontations held in differences of opinion by means of Amsterdam argumentation.

The fourth and last NWO conference was held Conference on Modern Logic: History, Theory in Schuilkerk De Hoop in Amsterdam Diemen and Application in Science held in Saint on May 30, 2008. During this one-day Petersburg conference speakers and commentators discussed their views on the use of stylistic The 10th Saint Petersburg Conference on devices in strategic manoeuvring in Modern Logic: History, Theory and Application argumentative confrontations. in Science was held at Saint-Petersburg State Participants who presented a paper in University on June 27, 2008. The Saint this conference were Jeanne Fahnestock, Anca Petersburg Conference, regularly hosted by the Gata, Fred Kauffeld, Michael Leff, Andrea University of Saint Petersburg, aims at Rocci, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, and Yvon promoting the study of logic in Russia and Tonnard. Comments were given by Bilal attracts argumentation researchers from around Amjarso, Corina Andone, Constanza Ihnen, the world who are interested in the study and Marcin Lewinski and Dima Mohammed. In application of logic. Frans van Eemeren gave a addition to these commentators, some speakers keynote speech at this conference entitled also commented on papers. ‘Fallacies in a pragma-dialectical perspective’.

21 Amsterdam Argumentation Chronicle

CADAAD 2008 Conference held at the Anyone who wishes to present a paper can University of Hertfordshire submit an abstract in English to the planning committee by sending an e-mail attachment to From 10 to 12 July, 2008, the Second [email protected]. Abstracts (ca. 250 words), Conference on Critical Approaches to prepared for blind refereeing, must be submitted Discourse Analysis across Disciplines was held in Word no later than November 1, 2009. All at the University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. abstracts should be accompanied by a separate The conference was an opportunity for CDA file in which the author indicates his/her scholars and scholars working within adjacent research interests and provides a list of key disciplines, such as communication studies, publications on argumentation. Please include media studies, narrative studies, sociology, your surname and "issa abstract" in the subject philosophy and political science, to present and entry of your e-mail message. discuss their views on the current state of critical discourse research. Among the conference themes are: Keynote speakers of this conference Argument schemes were Jonathan Charteris-Black, Piotr Cap, Teun Argumentation structures van Dijk, Frans van Eemeren, Jonathan Potter Fallacies and Ruth Wodak. Theoretical issues Argumentative strategies Argumentation and stylistics RECENT BOOK PUBLICATIONS Ethos and pathos in argumentation BY THE AMSTERDAM SCHOOL Analysis of controversies Argumentation in debate Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorsrt, R. (2008). Persuasion research Teoria sistematica dell’argumentazione. Interpersonal argumentation L’approccio pragma-dialettico. (transl. A. Visual argumentation Gilardoni). Milano: Memesis. Religious argumentation Argumentation and epistemology Eemeren, F.H. van, Williams, D.C. & Zagar, Argumentation in the media I.Z. (2008). Understanding Argumentation. Argumentation in a medical context Work in Progress. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Argumentation in a legal context Argumentation in a political context

Further information on the 7th ISSA Conference CALL FOR PAPERS FOR THE 7TH is available at: http://www.hum.uva.nl/issa. The ISSA CONFERENCE address of the planning committee is: Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, From June 29 to July 2, 2010, the 7th Department of Speech Communication, Conference on Argumentation of the Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Spuistraat International Society for the Study of 134, 1012 VB, Amsterdam, [email protected]. Argumentation (ISSA) will be held at the University of Amsterdam. The aim of the conference is to draw together scholars from a variety of disciplines that are working in the field of argumentation theory.

The keynote speakers are: Maurice Finocchiaro (University of Nevada, Las Vegas) James Klumpp (University of Maryland) James Freeman (Hunter College, City University of New York).

The planning committee of the 7th ISSA Conference invites presentations of original, non-published work on argumentation. Argumentation theorists, (informal) logicians, discourse analysts, communication scholars, rhetoricians, legal scholars, and other scholars involved in the study of argumentation are all encouraged to take part.