THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE

Transcription

1 THE AMSTERDAM ARGUMENTATION CHRONICLE SPECIAL ISSUE DEDICATED TO PETER HOUTLOSSER ( ) 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 14 th, 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 2 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 Snieckute and Assimakis Tseronis 4 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 7 th ISSA Conference 21

3 3 PETER DID NOT WASTE HIS TIME By Frans van Eemeren Peter Houtlosser was someone who did not want to waste time. When he discovered in the 1970s that studying Dutch Language and Literature did not live up to his expectations, he decided to move on to a more concrete occupation. He became a 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. As a comeback student, Peter became fascinated by the study of argumentation. It therefore came as no surprise that he wanted to be a PhD student and write a doctoral dissertation. The results of his doctoral research were published in 1995 in the monograph Standpunten in een kritische discussie [Standpoints in a critical discussion], which is still quoted frequently by Dutch colleagues and students. Meanwhile Peter had acquired a taste for research and knew for certain that it was his kind of thing. He and I together started a comprehensive research project aimed at integrating insights from rhetoric in the dialectical theory of argumentation developed in Amsterdam. Peter, who had become an Assistant Professor in our department and Book Review Editor of the journal Argumentation, proved to be an extremely active and productive scholar who rapidly gained a considerable international reputation. His intense way of discussing research problems has become legendary among his colleagues, and all his friends in the international community of argumentation theorists will miss him dearly. Peter also enjoyed teaching, especially in the international research Master program Rhetoric, Argumentation theory and Philosophy. The idea that talented students from all over the world had come to Amsterdam to study argumentation had a strong appeal to him. He always tried to get the maximum out of his students and, in turn, the students considered him a marvelous teacher. In an effort to keep the best students somewhat longer with us, he applied successfully for a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, which allowed these students to write their doctoral dissertations as part of a research program on strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Even after he had to withdraw from other activities due to his illness, Peter continued to advise these and other talented students. These tasks he performed, like everything else he did for us, with his whole heart. Peter certainly did not waste his time. During the past twelve years Peter Houtlosser and I concentrated our joint research for the most part on the design quality of argumentative discourse captured by the notion strategic maneuvering. We wanted to extend the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation in such a way that the analysis and evaluation could become more refined and better accounted for. To reach our goal, we aimed for enriching our dialectical theoretical framework systematically with rhetorical insights. As a matter of course, we were eager to discuss the views we developed with others in the field interested in the same problems or similar problems. In our publications on strategic maneuvering, starting in 1998, Peter Houtlosser and I claimed that a full analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse is possible only if the argumentation concerned is first situated in the communicative context in which it occurs. This means that pragma-dialecticians, next to their analytically motivated theoretical model of critical discussion designed for enabling a normative treatment of argumentation, also need to have an empirically justified theoretical concept of the communicative activity type in which the argumentation takes place. Communicative activity types are connected with certain institutionalized spheres or domains of discourse and they have a more or less conventional format that is instrumental in realizing the primary goals of the activity types concerned. In characterizing a communicative activity type argumentatively, we argued that the parameters pertinent to distinguishing between the one activity type and another could be derived from the distinctive

4 4 features of the four stages distinguished in the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion. In this way, crucial theoretical instruments were created for linking the empirical context of the rhetorical dimension of strategic maneuvering systematically with the ideal of resolving differences of opinion on the merits by critically testing the tenability of the standpoints at issue that is the normative context of the dialectical dimension. Peter Houtlosser and I were out to identify the preconditions for carrying out argumentative discourse in a certain communicative activity type that determine the constraints and opportunities of strategic maneuvering in that activity type. When Peter and I started our project on strategic manoeuvring in argumentative activity types, Peter had already been diagnosed with cancer and he knew that his chances for survival were very slim, if not non-existent. All the same he wanted to go on with the work we had started. This is why he spent a considerable amount of the energy he had left on continuing his research and presenting his views to others. Sadly, Peter did not live to see the final results, but his work will live on in the work of his colleagues and students. PETER IN THE EYES OF HIS STUDENTS By Theodora Achourioti, Bilal Amjarso, Corina Andone, Dima Mohammed, Marija Snieckute and Assimakis Tseronis We got to know Peter as a lecturer and tutor, some of us as a thesis supervisor and as a copromotor, but as we got to know him more, all of us recognised him also as a friend. During his teaching, Peter was extraordinarily passionate in explaining ideas and in attempting to convince the students of his claims. His patience and his willingness to listen were without limits. Not even time constraints could make him give up responding to the questions we raised or even from raising new questions. That is why prior to meeting with Peter, you knew you had better prepare yourself very well, for you knew nothing would escape his scrutiny. You became prepared for a long discussion, and for a challenging critic who hardly ever got tired of discussing every last detail of your text. He had the exceptional ability to see indefinite problems, for example, seeing that things did not follow or that claims were not well supported, as well as the incredible persistence in not turning a blind eye to these problems. We would often leave his office confused and with more questions than answers, thanks to his habit of confronting our ideas with even more ideas. Even though we knew that we would be exposed to his criticism and that we would run the risk of getting confused, we were still eager to meet Peter. Perhaps we were tempted by the disillusionment, which we knew that he would certainly offer. It was not in spite of, but through his never-ending criticism that Peter made us feel appreciated. Peter always took our views and doubts seriously. We always learned something from 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. Here, Peter included the genealogy of William of Orange, the separation between the Catholics and the Protestants, accompanied by a drawing of the map of the Netherlands on the whiteboard illustrating the different regions where the 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 genuine interest in our peculiar habits, the books and films that we like or dislike, the places that we have visited, even the kind of food that we love. Although Peter did not overtly praise us, he definitely managed to make each one of us feel special through his joking and teasing. Even though his jokes were not always easy to take, they eventually taught us to laugh at ourselves, because for Peter nothing was exempt from sarcasm, not even himself. He was so proud of his sense of sarcasm, especially when it allowed him to laugh at how conventional we can be, but also when it revealed to him how conventional he himself could be.

5 5 Peter, you have influenced us in many ways. The special bond that you created with so much charm will always remain in our minds and in our hearts. REMEMBERING PETER Teacher and Friend By Theodora Achourioti Peter was special and I am lucky to have met him, first as a teacher, then as a friend. As a teacher, he was both a pleasure and a challenge for us students to work with, always passionately engaging in discussions, and very critical of ideas, even his own. He never liked to play the authoritative, infallible teacher. On the contrary, he was strikingly genuine; someone you knew would tell things as they really are. I learned a lot from Peter, and theory was only a small part of it. Most of all, I remain amazed by the way he chose to deal with his illness; from the day he privately announced to his close circle of friends what he had just come to know, to the last day in the hospital when he said goodbye. Peter never showed disillusionment about what was going to happen; he openly talked about it, as well as joked about it in his very Dutch sense of humor. I am amazed not to have ever seen a sign of bitterness or anger these last few years. Instead, Peter was very expressive, and made sure that his friends knew how special they were for him. I can only be grateful for all the time we had happily chatting away over coffee or lunch. Peter taught the people around him something about the value of life that is not always easy to see. Thank you, Peter. Question time! By Bilal Amjarso My first encounter with Peter must have taken place some time in November or December 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 to 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, for one, started fearing that he would soon cancel the arrangement as our questions became fewer, but Peter never cancelled it. And during question times Peter hardly showed any signs of annoyance. He simply took his time in answering the (very few) questions that he had to answer. And after having answered the question to our and his satisfaction he would lean slightly forward, and ask softly with a smile on his face, Any questions?. A walk through the South of Amsterdam By Corina Andone I have very fond memories of Peter. I remember with much pleasure my meetings with him in order to discuss various argumentation issues and the persistence with which he would try to make me understand exactly how things are. Peter was happy to share not only his in-depth knowledge of argumentation, but also his expertise in many other things. I recall with joy one of the walks in Peter s company through Amsterdam. Well familiar with the city, Peter introduced me to the southern part, where the architectural style of the Amsterdam School is most prominent. In the company of Peter, it was not simply a walk through the streets of this part

6 6 of the city, but a methodical presentation of the names of the architects, of the type of brick used, of every tiny detail of the towers, ornamental spires and decorated windows of the buildings. Naturally, he would have something to say also about everything else in the area that was not in the Amsterdam School style: the Haarlemmermeer tram station, the open air school or the cemetery Huis te Vraag. Peter had a finely detailed story to tell about everything and he was always enthusiastic to do so. Experiences like this one make me remember Peter so often. By Merel Boers The last domain Peter was someone who could be so imposing, that he became intimidating. For a long time I thought I could never add anything useful to a head so full of determined knowledge. Each subject came with a lecture attached. Did you know, have you read, do you see... When he was on his own turf, I gladly took on the role of sponge and tried to stay on his train of thought. It would be more difficult when he entered my domain. Lecture became inquisition. In the beginning, I had enough little facts to keep him satisfied. But as his end drew near, his hunger for knowledge became ever more superhuman. It was not long before I needed my bookcase and the library to answer his questions. Which I conveniently excused by my extraordinarily bad memory for names and dates. My pride did not get damaged until Peter started reading stuff that I had been bashing myself over for not having read yet. When he mentioned classical works that I had never heard of: "Merel, how can it be you have never heard of that?" Back to sponge it was. For us lesser gods it was fortunate he usually kept his knives in velvet covers. The attack would do no more damage than a pinprick then. He would look at the drop of blood he had drawn, surprised and triumphant at the same time. How easy was that? But you got another shot. You were always allowed to improve yourself. If I did not mind assuming the role of the audience, we could talk books. I recommended the stories of fatalist dandy Hermann Harry Schmitz, but Peter of course knew something completely obscure in the same genre the Hungarian Deszö Kosztolányi, who was funnier and wrote better. Naturally. In a stern manner Peter would convey that only a few of Schmitz stories pleased him, whereas Kosztolányi was fascinating from start to finish. I had to agree, and felt slightly embarrassed about my boundless enthusiasm for Schmitz earlier. Peter wanted to discuss Thomas Bernhard, a writer he considered a master-joker. I read Bernhard, for Peter; felt hopeless, annoyed, sad. Peter shook his head. How can you feel those things, Merel, when this is evidently hilarious!? He recounted a scene, and did not get halfway through before he had to laugh so hard it bounced back from the walls and glass panes of the Hortus café. The elderly ladies who had been listening in on the entire conversation, now looked at Peter as if he was a South American Indian, naked but for a large knife dangling from his waist in a soft monkey skin. The Peterian mixture of amazement and triumph over others, his fiery wish that I, too, would find it funny, eventually enabled me to see Bernhard through Peter s eyes. His capacity for the untouchable mood and his dictatorial gift to subject the moods of others to his will, were awe inspiring. Still, there is one domain where he never ruled over me. Once upon a time I studied in Vienna. When Peter went there with Nora, he asked me for advice. I emptied my head into a document summing up strange and beautiful things in that ambiguous city. Not surprisingly, my advice was centred on food and drink. When he got back, Peter swore they had done everything on the list, except a Pferdeleberkässemmel at the horse butcher on the Gumpendorferstraße that was too much for Nora. On Vienna, Peter could chat endlessly and delightfully. Slowly our conversation moved from Viennese waiters and coffeehouse interiors to Dearly Beloved Cakes. Over long lunches, set up to discuss my research, favourite and hated Amsterdam venues were ranked along complicated but rigid lines of comfort, service and quality of food and drink. When ordered food was served, it was scrutinised immediately. I am a glutton, but Peter never ever mentioned it. At Sal Meijer s, he joined in ordering an extra roll. And even when his stomach was kaput, he diligently countered his ordeal with heaps of food. Well, I got these duck legs, I had three and of course the starter, too... I had to lie down afterwards. It took three hours for the pain to fade. No painkiller that helps anymore. But it was worth it. Big grin. Turned out I could even give some advice, knew stores that this Great Amsterdammer did not know, secret places for Best Wurst and Finest Cheese. Where do you go for fish? What should one drink with goulash? My butcher brined a shoulder of pork for me the other day... It would have been a matter of time before I would have definitely lost out on this one as well, and would have had to succumb to Peter s views on the best fishmonger, the only brand for Amsterdam pickles and the perfect oven temperature for a delicate roast. I am still racking my brain for the next common interest, where I may briefly be Peter s equal once more.

7 7 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 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 complete chaos. To enhance the atmosphere some people (among whom the same Peter) started throwing old cane garden chairs from the balcony of the fourth floor into the garden of the landlady. Furthermore they found a ladder that they used to climb the wall of the bathroom which resulted in terrified girls and a broken glass door. The day after the party the landlady came to our room and required our immediate departure. At that moment Peter did not know me and I did not know Peter and only some decades later when we had become colleagues in the department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric Peter and I reconstructed that he had been at this eventful party and had been one of the mysterious guests. As neighbours we often waved to each other through the open windows. I am sure that he still wanted to throw things out of the window but took great care to do this when I wasn't looking. Unfollowed advice By Bart Garssen Peter demanded precision in conversation and was at the same time rather nosy. This in combination with his tendency to give practical advice about almost everything he found important made conversation sometimes difficult. Here is an example: Peter: How was your trip to Antwerp last week? Bart: Oh, very nice! Peter: What train did you take? Bart: The uhm train. Peter: Rather late wouldn t you say? But wait how can that be? There is no train to Antwerp that leaves at Bart: Uhm, but on Sunday Peter: Oh, yes of course {sigh} there is an train on Sunday, why didn t you tell me in the first place? Anyway, did you have water rabbit [muskrat] in restaurant the Golden Pig, like I suggested? Bart: Well, it was hard to find the Golden Pig. But I found a very nice place in Peter: The Golden Pig hard to find? Pffff, you walk straight from the Egg Market, follow the curve until you see café The Ugly Madam you know, also a fantastic place and then you take a right. You just can t miss it. Bart: But that s exactly what Peter: I think you are just afraid of eating water rabbit and that you cowardly went for Belgian fries with mayonnaise. But I trust you did see the bookstore I mentioned, you know, the one on Central Market. Bart: Yes well, I actually saw the bookstore from the outside. Peter: Oh, I see, I don t think you followed any of my advice did you?

8 8 The Houtlosser Dilemma By Erik C. W. Krabbe It was June The ARGA-CARGA Summer Institute in Argumentation at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, was in full session, the classroom filled with both students and teachers. Among them the Dutch AIOs (who didn t like to be called students). Douglas Walton had just shown that ad hominem arguments need not be fallacious. He must have presented some convincing cases, for, if I remember well, the balance was now tipping to the other side: ad hominem being perfectly alright. But then Peter Houtlosser intervened. What would happen to the director of a coal company? How could this man defend any point of view about acid rain (a hot topic in those days)? If he were to say that it was a serious problem, he would be mangled by a tu quoque attack ( you are producing acid rain yourself ). If he were to deny this he would face a devastating poisoning the well argument ( of course you think so, being the director of a coal company ). Either way, this man would by an ad hominem argument be prevented from putting forward a point of view that would be taken seriously in the discussion on acid rain. Flouting the freedom rule in this way would make it impossible to resolve the difference of opinion. This was a good argument against too lenient an attitude towards ad hominem and Peter stated it very forcefully. It made quite an impression on Douglas Walton and on me, so that we took it into account in our paper It s All Very Well for You to Talk! Situationally Disqualifying Ad Hominem Attacks, Informal Logic 15 (1993, appeared 1994), Of this paper, Section 3 (pp ) was devoted to an analysis of the Houtlosser Dilemma. Also, the Houtlosser Dilemma became a fixed item of my classes in which ad hominem was discussed. So hundreds of students in Groningen (courses Logic 1 and Reasoning and Arguing ) and dozens in Amsterdam (honors courses) saw either the Dutch or the English version of the slide that depicted the dilemma: The point was always rapidly taken in, and when there was an exam question about it this used to be very well answered by most. Thus the name Houtlosser was spread even before Peter s captivating contributions to argumentation theory were published. But it must be admitted that not everyone remembered very well who Houtlosser was. As I heard one student confess, after years: he had always thought that Houtlosser was the director of the coal company! I am sure Peter would have loved this. With Peter to Koper By Jan Albert van Laar and Henrike Jansen In November 2006 we went to the First Slovenian conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment. We travelled together with Peter, which was a very amusing experience. Already at Schiphol airport Peter managed to evoke angry faces in the coffee corner where we were waiting to check in. Of course one is not allowed to smoke at Schiphol, as the three of us knew very well. However, in this coffee corner there were tables with a prohibition sign of smoking and tables without such a sign. Coincidentally we were sitting at a table without a sign. We were just discussing the fact that since some tables had a sign and others had not should mean on the basis of an a contrario argument that one is allowed to smoke at a table without a sign. When the waitress came with the coffee Peter told her, rather selfsatisfied, the result of our discussion. She was not amused, but we were! Before the Conference took place in Koper, the three of us spent one day in Ljubljana. Peter had a book by Thomas Bernard in his pocket, from which he quoted every sentence that he liked. Many sentences have been proclaimed during that trip, long sentences, in German; we merely understood half of it, but Peter was eager to translate. We ve learnt a lot from Peter during our sightseeing of Ljubljana, not only about Thoman Bernard and other authors from Central Europe, but also about food, drinks, history and 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 9 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. He s always late he said to the others standing 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 Underground song I m Waiting for the Man which Peter, as I guessed, had just partly quoted: He s never early, he s always late, First thing you learn is that you always gotta wait. He indeed had this song in mind, and a long chat about his musical taste ensued, proving his insight into music was no worse than the one he had into argumentation theory or literature. It was not, however, the first time I heard Peter using the he s always late line. If the elevator incident was a friendly admonition of a late PhD student, the other occasion shows Peter s famous dark humour. Just over a year ago we had dinner at our place with, among others, Peter and Frans van Eemeren. Frans was in the middle of a story about their past academic visits to the US, mentioning the late professor of rhetoric they still had a chance to meet back then. Peter, apparently referring to the late professor, immediately added: he s always late. Or, maybe, in written form: he s always late. This pun, obviously intended, was nevertheless innocuous and could easily pass unnoticed. What cannot, however, easily pass unnoticed is that Peter, as we know, has never been late. By Bert Meuffels Jammer hè? Peter had some strange and peculiar habits: for example, his persistent way of asking difficult and basic questions to the presenter of a paper at symposia, research colloquia or conferences on argumentation theory was one of his many legendary acts. Quite often the presenter got really mad, but for the critical audience it was evident that here a scholar with a profound knowledge of the field was speaking, and questioning. Peter s strange, idiosyncratic way of holding a conversation was not restricted to scientific discourse; it generalized to conversations about his other beloved activities like reading and walking. When discussing the qualities of a certain book (Peter loved reading literature, especially the novels of little known East European literary men), he came very close to you (violating all the politeness principles of ordinary conversations), with a big irresistible smile on his face, exclaiming: Mooi hè? [It s beautiful, isn t it?]. For me as a conversational partner, it was simply impossible to doubt the acceptability of that standpoint that was physically advanced with his whole body, let alone to advance and defend a different one. And when you agreed with him there was no other choice: you had to agree - he inevitably 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 10 missed something essential in your life. At least for me it was evident that the extent of Peter s reading was enormous, as was the case with his knowledge of the field of argumentation theory. Peter was not only a lover of literature, he was also a passionate walker going regularly on journeys walking through the Dutch and European countryside needless to say that his knowledge of the different roads and footpaths in Europe was as extensive as that in the field of argumentation theory and of literature. After our holidays, we usually discussed our travel experiences during the last weeks (Peter on feet, myself by car), and most of the time we discovered a common footpath or a route somewhere in a remote place of Europe we both knew. Then it was Peter s turn: Did you see that church etc., bending his head a little bit, big smile on his face, approaching you to just a few inches, saying: Prachtig hè? [It s magnificent, isn t it?]. Luckily and with big relief, this time I hadn t overlooked that curiosity so I could overtly enjoy our joint experiences, hoping Peter wouldn t go on with asking more questions I was unable to answer. Of course, that hope was idle: as we all know, when Peter was asking questions, it was just impossible to stop him in his enthusiasm. Most of the time our conversation about our holidays ended with my painful resignation that I regrettably had missed something that was really worth seeing. We in the department, we all miss our colleague Peter we miss his intellectual curiosity, his innovative theoretical contributions to the field and his peculiar, enthusiastic way of holding conversations. When somebody would ask us after our feelings in respect of his early pass away, we would simply say: Jammer hè? [It s a pity, isn t it?]. The charm of the old-fashioned By Dima Mohammed Every time I see A.Bok & Zonen, I think of Peter. It is a paint shop at the end of Bloemgracht, on the left side where the sun hits late in the afternoon; an old-fashioned specialised paint shop, where you can buy all kinds of paint, brushes and anything else you might need if you want to paint. It was with so much fascination and almost with pride that Peter explained to me about A.Bok & Zonen, when we passed by it on a Friday afternoon. In the same way he had also explained about Cave van Kef on Marnixtraat, which had become run by Frank and Marike, and where you could still buy some special French cheese and wine; Ensink on Haarlemmerdijk where you could get some of the best imported sausages; the French butcher in The Hague where you could speak French when buying the real saucisse de Lyon and so many other specialty shops here and there. I can still see the sparkle in his eyes whenever he would remember another of these old-fashioned shops, like he was happy to call them. There was something special in each, some charm in the small details of humans interacting as they sell and buy. And there is beauty in the simple way you connect to a place when you find your own special old-fashioned corners in it I pass by A.Bok & Zonen everyday in my way to university. By José Plug Good question! There has been a VIOT-conference every three years, ever since These conferences usually take place in the Netherlands, and every once in a while abroad, in Belgium. The 1990-VIOT conference was organized in Groningen. Since this was to be my first contribution, I was already pretty nervous long before the conference had even started. Peter s lecture had been scheduled on the first day of the conference and was titled Standpoints in a Pragma-dialectical Perspective. In those days I did not yet really know Peter very well; he worked in Amsterdam and I worked at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. I did, however, know that he had planned to write a thesis on standpoints. Peter s lecture proved to be quite a complicated story entailing all kinds of distinctions which were hard to follow, at least in my eyes. In reality they may have been not quite as hard to follow as I imagined at that time. I assume my nerves were playing tricks on me and made it impossible for me to truly concentrate on what Peter was actually saying. Unfortunately my nerves did not prevent me from asking a question. I had the audacity to inform after the function of all these distinctions and wondered aloud about the practical implications of what he was doing. Peter said something to the effect that he thought that this was a good question and that he would need some time to answer it. The irony of his retort was not lost on me. Afterwards I felt genuinely embarrassed about asking such ill-informed questions. I did manage to steer clear of Peter after that unhappy incident until the day of Erik Krabbe s Quod erat demonstrandum -lecture. During his presentation, Erik had, to prove a point, struck up his version of the Beatles-classic Yesterday. During the ensuing laughter and postlecture chit-chat, the smokers among us naturally flocked together. That was a perfect moment, or so I thought, to elucidate my intentions as to my insipid question at the time. Peter insisted that he no idea what I was talking about and that his answer had, on the contrary, not been meant to sound ironical at all. I found it hard to believe what he said. Only after I had come to know Peter better, it dawned upon me that he was not someone to

11 11 dismiss questions as being ridiculous. In much the same way that he found it very hard to imagine someone would criticize his questions. until 2 in the morning about everything from speech acts to Johnny Cash and I knew that 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 Who's Afraid of Peter Houtlosser? By Leah Polcar When I was here at UvA as a visiting lecturer in 2000, a small group of staff would usually go out to dinner on Friday evenings. Peter always attended these dinners, but then I did not know him well and I must admit, though he was always kind to me and encouraged conversation, I was pretty intimidated by him and was too frightened to talk directly with him. He was always so knowledgeable about everything including American bluegrass music, a topic I was sure I had to know more about, though I was proven quite wrong and, being Peter, pretty strong in his convictions. One particular Friday, no one was able to attend the dinner besides Peter and yours truly. I was scared out of my wits thinking that I would never be able to make conversation and surely this evening would turn out to be a disaster. However, during dinner, Peter introduced the topic of pedophilia and began immediately to stir up controversy by taking-up some rather extreme positions on this topic. I was so shocked that I started to argue back, forgetting my fear, luckily for me. After dinner, he said that we must get a drink to continue our discussion and led me through the red-light district pointing out interesting architecture, giving me a Dutch history lesson, and eventually bringing me to a small café close to Centraal Station where he knew the owner and the history of the café. He told me he especially liked it there as it played a nice selection of American country music. We talked 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 secondyear 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 as Peter s co-promotor. It was a mixed pleasure, at first: In the beginning, his desire for precision and his love for detail turned against him; they made him want to put every reservation and every nuance into one and the same sentence, obscuring any idea he might have had. In addition, his tenacity threatened to turn into obstinacy. But eventually, the productive side of these characteristics took over. Frans and I were very proud of him for the outstanding dissertation he eventually delivered. And then I had the good fortune to be able to get to know Peter as a colleague, and still other aspects of his personality transpired. His undaunted loyalty, for one. Loyalty to the people that he admired and to the ideas these people stood for (and for which he admired them, in the first place, once they had passed the rigorous test of his analytical mind). He did not tire of defending these ideas in front of everyone who wanted to listen and to criticize fiercely what he perceived to be misunderstandings and misrepresentations. He was not one to go along with the fashions and follies of the day, but steadfastly stayed with what he found of value. And, getting to know him closer, I learned that his loyalty and enthusiasm did not only extend to people and ideas, but also to things the beauty of a wellmade table, the elegance of a glass bowl, landscapes the Belgian Voerstreek, where he loved to hike, and cities Amsterdam in the first place, naturally, but also Vienna, Regensburg. And, of course, to good food and drink (he was an accomplished cook himself).

12 12 I admired Peter s acuity and mastery of the theory, the finer points of which we often debated. I could test my own ideas by submitting them to his intelligent inspection. I enjoyed his sharp irony and his stoical bright temper. And I feel fortunate that I could catch the warm glint of friendship in his dark-blue eyes and share his enthusiasm over objects of beauty, gloomy novels, hiking, good food and drink. Finally, I am very happy that he and I still had the time to jointly produce the book in Frans s honor which he proposed to make, before we knew anything was amiss. I am Rodie Risselada By Francisca Snoeck Henkemans I first met Peter when he was a student in one of my courses. I remember how intelligent he was, 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 social occasions. One time he came to a large conference on discourse markers where I was already present, and I saw him introduce himself to a woman by saying: I am Rodie Risselada. The woman thought it quite a coincidence that they both had the same name. Caring, Generous, Tease By Assimakis Tseronis Peter was assigned as my mentor during my M.A. studies. I did not attend a lecture by him until the second semester but I was already struck by his caring and engaging attitude right from the start. In the first month trying to orientate myself in the courses on offer and to catch up with the readings as well as trying to get used to living as a foreign student in Amsterdam, I was confused. Peter happened to send me a brief 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 s, 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 will be. His immediate and natural reaction to that showed me that he was someone who genuinely cares. His informal way of dealing with my first month s frustrations in that first long meeting in his office showed me how generous he was in taking time to listen and to discuss with his students. His joke about it a few months later, prepared me for the distinct sense of humour that was typical of him. In the years that I had the chance to have him as tutor, I have learnt from him that engaging wholeheartedly in research can be a rewarding endeavour mainly because it gives you the opportunity to come across interesting and fine people to whom you can communicate more than just the results of your research. A present for Peter By Jean Wagemans When I visited Peter in hospital, I brought him this drawing by Solko Schalm. It is a visual representation of the concept strategic manoeuvring, inspired by the iconography of dialectic and rhetoric as two of the artes liberales. I gave him this present to thank him for introducing me into the field of argumentation theory, for being my teacher and supervisor, for all the discussions we had about strategic manoeuvring, and most of all for being a wonderful person. He took a closer look at the drawing, and I expected him to say something like: Thanks, but don t you know that it s impossible to thank someone for being a particular type of person! He would have been right, for giving such answers made Peter a type of his own. Instead, he smiled and said Beautiful!

13 13 AN HOUR WITH PETER Interview conducted with Bilal Amjarso on Tuesday 25 th October 2005 and published in the 1 st issue of the 2 nd volume of the, which was sent out on December 2005 Amjarso: Welcome to this interview. Let s start with your student days: did it ever occur to you that you would one day become an argumentation scholar? Were there any clues? Houtlosser: Well, it depends on what point in my student life you are talking about. My student days began in I studied for three and a half years and then interrupted my study because I did not like it. I did not feel at home at the university in terms of the intellectual and cultural climate at that time. I was not up to it. I was too young, as I reconstructed later. Then I started working, and soon I came to work at the opera. I was a carpenter for five years, making the decoration for the Dutch opera, but I was not so good at that. One day, my girlfriend Nora said, I was informed that your university grades are still valid, so you could return to university and continue your study in Dutch language and Literature. I thought, well, I should do that then. I was still not so well motivated, but once I returned there and did my first class, I saw that the people had changed and I was older, more mature and I really liked what was being taught, both literature and linguistics, as well as speech communication. So I really felt that this time it was not just something that I had to complete to not spoil the rest of my life, but I really liked it. It soon turned out that at some things I was even rather good, in particular at speech communication and argumentation theory. My first class was with Agnès van Rees. I made a paper in her class that she found very good, and I was delighted about that, and then I read the book that Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst wrote, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, and I found it a very good book. I also read many more books than were on the program list. I was in the library all day reading philosophy of language introductions and books by Searle and so on. I really got an interest in the philosophy of language and continued my studies doing courses with philosophy, three courses or so besides the speech communication program, and then, together with speech communication, courses in argumentation. I was already on my way to becoming an argumentation theorist. Still, I had never dreamed that I would be good enough to get a PhD position, which was then called AIO. With the help of Frans, however, I managed to write a really good application to become an AIO, and it was accepted, and on September 1, 1989, I started working on my dissertation. Before you started this dissertation, did you know that there had hardly been anything written on the identification of standpoints? My Master s thesis was also on the identification of standpoints but focused on the French linguistic theory of Ascombre and Ducrot and examined to what extent their insights into words such as even, yet, and some other words could be helpful in identifying standpoints. So I was already concerned with that subject, and then when I started my dissertation, I had to describe the state of the art in the literature on the subject. I then found out, however, that obviously nobody used this term. People talked about beliefs, ideas, attitudes, views, but the term standpoint is really a pragma-dialectical term. Together with my two supervisors, I decided that, by making a comparison between the concept of standpoint and all these other concepts that are used in the literature on argumentation, on reasoning, on persuasion, and on belief revision, and so on, the the concept of a standpoint would be elucidated and better defined. The second part of the thesis could then be about the identification of standpoints proper. So this is how it started, but even at that time I was not sure whether I would be an argumentation theorist in the professional sense because writing a dissertation is no guarantee that you have a position at the university and that you will spend the rest of your professional life on argumentation theory. After I had defended my thesis in 1995 and a few months of teaching here, however, I got a post-doctoral position, subsidized by the National Science Foundation (NWO), and that was a position for three years. After that, I was a faculty fellow for half a year, and then I got a tenure track position. Only then I believed that I was indeed an argumentation theorist! You started your academic career by investigating the concept of standpoint. And then, all of a sudden, you (together with Frans van Eemeren) are associated with the concept of strategic maneuvering. How did the idea of strategic maneuvering first come about? Strategic maneuvering is something that Frans van Eemeren and I developed, and how we got involved with strategic maneuvering is that at the end of 1995 Frans idea was that rhetoric, as a discipline that studied argumentation from a different perspective than dialectics, should in some or other way play a role in our theorizing, and that it would be a good idea if we would work together on this project and try to see how rhetorical insight could be included in the pragmadialectical theory. There were a couple of concrete reasons for that. First, although there was already a considerable set of tools and theoretical 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 14 analysis if you would also include rhetorical insight in the justification, that is, knowledge of why people say the things that they are saying, instead of only being able to point out only what they are saying from an argumentative perspective. Take the example Can we get a move on? You know intuitively that there is something in this discourse like an opinion that We should move on. We can account for that in the analysis, and Searlean and Gricean insight will give you the tools to account for it, so that s one step, but another step is that you would like to know why people don t say, We should move on, but ask this rhetorical question, Can we get a move on? in order to present the standpoint that We should move on. And we thought that kind of information why people say the argumentative things that they say, in the way they say them to this opponent, could be recovered from rhetoric, and that is why we thought that including rhetorical insight in the analysis of argumentative discourse would be of help. It took us some time and real thinking to come up with the right way, and then in the end we got to this concept of strategic maneuvering which allowed us to include rhetorical insights in such a way that we said that all the parties involved in argumentative discussions will not only try to resolve their dispute in a way that is in accordance with the standards of critical discussion but also to decide the dispute in their own favor. All the things that they have to do to comply with the critical standards can also be done in their own favor, so they can maneuver strategically. If they have, for instance, according to the procedure of the critical discussion, to present a standpoint, then what could be rhetorical is that the standpoint is presented in such a way that the speaker, the arguer, thinks that he can defend it well. The rhetorical part of the theory has now become so noticeable that one may start thinking that pragma-dialectics has started giving up some of its normative elements. I can easily imagine someone saying, Well, since it s no longer strictly about observing or violating the rules, then what s the role of the prescriptive rules? Prescriptive rules must be obsolete for this matter. Well, the rules have not been prescriptive in the first place. They are rules that you follow if you would like to critically test the tenability of a standpoint by resolving a difference of opinion about this standpoint, and each of the parties may, in our conception of strategic maneuvering, do their best to make the moves that would advance his or her own case in this testing process, but of course in doing their best to win the discussion the arguers may go too far and violate one or more of the discussion rules. Then their maneuvering, we say, has derailed, is no longer sound and is therefore condemnable for that, so the rules play the same role that they have always played. They prevent or prohibit people from going about arguing in a certain way you could say, in a too rhetorical way that is not allowed by the norms of a critical discussion. Including rhetorical considerations means acknowledging that people do things to win the discussion, but that does not imply in any way that you have to give up the idea that they are at the same time constrained in their behavior by the rules for critical discussion, so I don t understand how anyone could think that the pragma-dialectical rules are now obsolete or that the theory has become less normative or whatever. So far the concept of strategic maneuvering has only been investigated theoretically and analytically. But at least the coming few years will know the rise of some empirical research into strategic maneuvering. In what way, do you think, the empirical work will support the theoretical views you have been endorsing about it so far. I think you should reverse the issue. I think the 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 advertorial as a rhetorical theory could have done but also how they try at least to keep up the pretence of being reasonable in that text. Every application supports the theory to such an extent that it shows that it is a theory that can do some work in practice. This academic year has been opened by the publishing of a book: Argumentatieve Indicatoren in het Nederlands, co-authored by

15 15 Frans van Eemeren, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans and yourself, written in Dutch. What was the main incentive to write a book on indicators of argumentation, and what will its contribution be in view of the whole pragmadialectical program? The book was, in fact, a continuation of an interest in strengthening the analysis from a pragmatic point of view, with the help of linguistic insight. There is insight from the philosophy of language, Gricean and Searlean pragmatics, but there is also more purely linguistic insight. We used insight from the French linguists Anscombre and Ducrot, and from Anglo-Saxon scholars like Kay and others. We thought it would be worthwhile to be able to say more about words and expressions, such as because, therefore, that could obviously also be indicators of argumentation as such, but also of other moves that are relevant to resolving a dispute, like indicators of standpoint, indicators of advancing or proposing a starting point, indicators of conclusions, indicators of argumentation structures, indicators of argumentation schemes that arguers use all in view of being able to come up with a stronger and better justified analysis of the discourse. To give an example, because is a word that can point at an argumentation but can also point at an explanation. I am sure he will come because he told me yesterday is more liable to be an argumentation than He is home today because his wife phones to tell me that he is ill. This will be something more like an explanation of why he s home today. In both cases, because is used. Now it s interesting to know under which conditions because points at an argumentation and under which conditions it points at an explanation. This is just one example. So, a better insight in the possibilities of use of these words can strengthen the analysis. Our theory allows us not to be just interested in argumentation as such but in all the moves that constitute a critical discussion. All the moves taking place within a critical discussion have their proper indicators. I lent the book to a friend of mine who is considering a career as a lawyer. I had the impression that by including a great number of examples the book must be of great practical significance for him, but he had a look at it and then he said, This is too theoretical! To what extent have you succeeded in reaching audiences with practical interests in argumentation? This book is not in the first place meant for people with a practical interest. It is a book that is meant for students of argumentation, and although it is to a great extent observational, it is still too theoretical, as your friend said, to have direct practical interest. On the other hand, because it is largely observational, it is good material for students with a linguistic background and interest because it gives more in-depth linguistic analyses of the things we are dealing with. So it s a good book for, for instance, students who want to write a Master s thesis. Of course, most of our Master students are nowadays non-dutch speaking students. This means that the book should first be translated into English. Perhaps, there is someone around who speaks both Dutch and English very well, like you, so that this person could translate it. There have, by the way, been books written in the pragma-dialectical school, in Dutch, which have a much more practical significance like, for instance, Argumenteren voor Juristen (Arguing for law students). This book is used in courses taught to lawyers and to people in companies. In fact, everyone in the Netherlands who wants to become a judge has to take a course in argumentation in which Argumenteren voor Juristen is used. The book was written in the eighties and has known many reprints. It was written by Frans van Eemeren, Eveline Feteris, Rob Grootendorst, Jose Plug, Harm Kloosterhuis and some others. It is a very popular book. Perhaps you can give that book to your friend. I have a remark about the Indicators book and also about the Systematic Theory book. The element of strategic maneuvering remains, against my expectations, absent from both books. Why? Because A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, to begin with, is a representation of the standard pragma-dialectical theory as it was developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst. That s it, and they together did not develop the concept of strategic maneuvering. There are some footnotes which announce that later on in other publications the element of rhetoric will also be addressed and that it will add to the analytical and evaluative strength of the theory, but is not yet included in that book simply because its authors did not develop the concept of strategic maneuvering. Something different goes for the Indicators book, because we started writing that book when Frans and I had not yet developed this concept of strategic maneuvering, and once we were developing it, we thought we should in the Indicators book keep our focus on the dialectical meaning that these indicator words could have in the resolution process. The strategic aspects of using such words would come later, and this is what is in part, in fact, already happening. Makis Tseronis will write a dissertation about the strategic use of indicators of standpoints that I have also dealt with in my own dissertation. If someone, for instance, says, I believe that I should not do this, then I say there are indications that this utterance could be functioning as a standpoint of course, depending on the context and so on because the author says I believe and he says should. Now, Makis will deal with the same expressions, I believe that, and similar expressions, but find out why people

16 16 would use these words when presenting a standpoint, what it does to their burden proof, for instance, whether they perhaps weaken their burden of proof by creating the possibility of later saying, Oh no, I only said that I believed it. I did not assert it. When writing the Indicators book, our idea was that you cannot do all at the same time. You can of course, but we did not. TRIBUTES FOR PETER HOUTLOSSER 51 years-old what a waste such a sweet and gifted person who was still so very young. Mieke Bal I will always think back, with pleasure, on the time he advised my thesis and the smart and critical jokes that he would always make. Janneke Belt I remember Peter as a nice, smart and helpful person with a good sense of humour, and I will 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 friends, former students and colleagues outside the department of Speech communication, Argumentation theory and Rhetoric did not hesitate to convey how sad they were to hear the news and how greatly they admired Peter Houtlosser. Here s a selection of what many of them had to say. Among the things I will remember is the way Peter would cross his legs, fold his arms and scrutinize every word one said when making an academic point and the web of implications that were spun out. He would point his finger and then begin with some very pointed questions that could be excruciatingly difficult to maneuver out of or otherwise answer without succumbing to his obvious point. Of course, that pointed finger would later turn to a hand holding a glass of wine and the pointed questions to charm, wit, and what I always took to be a mischievous-sense-of-fun. Mark Aakhus The little I knew of Peter personally, he was bright, enthusiastic, and warm. Jonathan Adler I consider myself fortunate to have met him and I will always remember him as a truly brilliant and brave man. Isabela Ietcu Fairclough I remember him especially for his unfailing cheerfulness; he was always a pleasure to be with, so I am very sad to think that there will be no more fun conversations with him. Alec Fisher Peter was such good company. I always valued his sense of humor, absent-mindedness, and the fact he never took himself too seriously. Charles Forceville I will always remember Peter as one of the most agreeable and merriest persons I have ever met. Anca Gata I always found Peter to be a remarkably kind person. Occasionally, he would serve as a second-reader on theses I was advising and sometimes he had to deal with students who weren t really suitable to write theses. Nonetheless, he always showed remarkable

17 17 compassion to these students and expended a lot of energy to make sure the students overcame their difficulties and finished successfully. I remember one student in particular whom he handled wonderfully. Rudolf Geel I didn t know Peter, but do know from what I have heard that he was an unusually loved, enthusiastic, and professional man. Lia van Gemert I was very fond of Peter, and will miss him. Michael Gilbert He was a wonderful colleague. Paul Gillaerts In our conversations, Peter shared with me his wonderful sense of humour and a love and enjoyment of life. He shared with me his wisdom and passion for a discipline to which we were both devoted. I consider myself quite blessed for having known Peter, and having had the chance to work with him. David Godden Peter was a light in our lives. Warm, humane, with a wonderful wit. He is missed, and will always be so. I treasure the time I spent with him in various places and parts of the world. Thomas Goodnight (though not always in his questioning during colloquia!). Alex Goodson It is indeed very sad news that Peter had to pass-away at such a young age. Jan Reijer Groesbeek Unfortunately, I never was able to take a class from Peter when I was a student. However, I did get to know him a little around the time of the 1994 ISSA conference. I remember still that I was so impressed with how much organization it took to plan such a large conference and that Peter was constantly busy organizing 30 things at once, yet was able to keep a cool head. Albert Goutbeek It is very sad that Peter had to die so young Peter's presence will surely be missed. Trudy Govier It is very difficult to actually realise that Peter is no longer among us Only time may eventually help to heal the wounds of the soul and the nice memories of the moments spent in Peter's company. Cornelia Ilie Peter s death is a great loss for our field. Ton van Haaften 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 pragmadialectical 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 I am aware of the substantial contributions Peter made to the department, as an academic and individual. I had the pleasure of being in his company on only several occasions, but I always found him genial and welcoming 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 knew few people who combined such a nice personality with such an extraordinary intellect and I will miss the conversations with him. Michael Hoppmann

18 18 Peter was dear to us too, and we are already missing him His personal courage and dedication to his work inspired everything scholarly that I have done in the past few years. Sally Jackson It is a sad day when we lose such a gifted and courageous friend and colleague. Ralph H. Johnson Peter was not only a distinguished argumentation scholar, but also a nice person and an interesting dialogue partner outside of his field of expertise. Manfred Kienpointner What another special person to have lost. Joost Kircz Peter was a good man, and a dear friend. Geoffrey D. Klinger Peter was a highly distinguished person and as a researcher he certainly was an inspiration to me. He was always ready for an academic conversational battle and he could always answer any question. He was truly a serious conversational partner he was (rightly) critical and was always willing to talk more about ideas. Peter was always available to answer any question we students had no matter what other work he was at that moment doing. Leon Laurey I will not only miss him because he was an excellent colleague, but also a warm, friendly, and humble person. Michiel Leezenberg He was obviously dealing with a lot, yet, in spite of that remained always happy and friendly where most people would have become bitter and harsh. Frank Ligtvoet When I saw the announcement in the newspaper announcing Peter s death, it was expected, but I was still struck that a person so full of life and who I still think of as so full of life, was no longer here. Marita Mathijsen-Verkooijen He talked about the fact that we are lucky to have the opportunity of study, research, and teach, and that this awareness should overcome all moments of difficulty and tiredness. It is only a small episode among the many memories you will have about Peter. Sara & Carlo Morasso Peter has left us in the flowering of his human and scientific maturity, and too early I have always felt in him, beside an extraordinary sensitiveness and friendship capacity, a strong passion for our common scientific interests. Eddo & Rachele Rigotti I am greatly saddened by his death, yet I also feel grateful that I had the opportunity to know and befriend such a sharp scholar and likable, friendly and thoughtful person as he was. Andrea Rocci I will keep in my heart the memory of all the gifts Peter has and of the person he was. Sara Rubinelli Peter was the best teacher I've ever had, and that I'll never forget the help and support he gave to his students. Liisa Salmela We will remember Peter as a sharp-witted and nice colleague who was always willing to tear down the walls and have speech communication studies recognized as an important discipline. Ted Sanders No matter how expected it was, it is still a hard loss to take. I have always admired Peter for his no-nonsense manner and the firm convictions that he showed in defending his ideas. Of course, over the last few years he has been admirable in other ways. Christopher Tindale I only had the opportunity to meet Peter one time, yet I remember him a kind and fiery guy. Fifty-one years old is far too young to die and his early passing makes his loss that much more sad. Claudio Verwer Oh, that Peter, he could be so cheerful with all of his crazy expressions and sayings. What fun we had together! Erik Viskil We will all miss Peter greatly. He was such a nice man, and a valued colleague. Douglas Walton Really, the loss of Peter is a loss to everyone he knew as he was wonderful, kind, and a warm friend as well as an important scholar When I think about Peter the picture of him I see in my mind is always smiling. One of the things I appreciated most about him was his wit and sense of humor. Conferences just aren t the same without him there smiling, laughing, and good naturedly teasing Scott (my favourite part). Harry Weger

19 19 Peter was truly one of the good guys, and I will miss him. David Cratis Williams January The conference, organised by The Centre for the Study of Argumentation of 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 15 th, 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 pragmadialectical theory. NEWS Perelman and beyond Conference held in Tel Aviv An International Conference on Perelman and beyond: From the Rhetorical Tradition to Argumentation Studies was held at Tel Aviv University from 7 to 9 January This conference was organised on the occasion of the 50 th anniversary of Perelman's New Rhetoric. A treatise of Argumentation's and aimed to explore the impact of the New Rhetoric on contemporary scholarship. The conference, which was organized in collaboration with Noemi Mattis Perelman, the Chaim Perelman Foundation in Brussels and the Louise and Dr. Nahum Lectures on French Culture and Rhetoric, attracted a host of internationally recognized scholars in the field of rhetoric and argumentation studies. Among the speakers at this conference were Emanuelle Danblon, Marcelo Dascal, Marianne Doury, Michael Leff, Christian Plantin and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. The Logic, Argumentation and Critical Thinking Conference held in Santiago ASCA has a new academic director On January 31 st, Mireille Rosello was inaugurated as the new academic director of the Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis (ASCA), thereby succeeding Willem Westeijn. Senior and junior members of ASCA attended the special ceremony to welcome the new president and to bid farewell to Willem Westeijn. Conference on Strategies in Argumentation held in Groningen The conference on Strategies in argumentation was held on 14 and 15 February, 2008, at the University of Groningen. The conference was organised by the Faculty of Philosophy in honour of Erik Krabbe and attracted a host of argumentation theorists from different countries. Keynote speakers of the conference were Frans van Eemeren, Douglas Walton and John Woods. Among the participants in this conference were Corina Andone, Anthony Blair, Eveline Feteris and Harm Kloosterhuis, Henrike Jansen, Dima Mohammed and Jean Wagemans. The conference was concluded with a valedictory lecture given by Erik Krabbe. The Logic, Argumentation and Critical Thinking Conference was held at the Diego Portales University in Santiago, Chile, from 8 to 11