Skip to main content
Log in

Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

According to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, for analysing argumentative discourse, a normative reconstruction is required which encompasses four kinds of transformations. It is explained in this paper how speech act conditions can play a part in carrying out such a reconstruction. It is argued that integrating Searlean insights concerning speech acts with Gricean insights concerning conversational maxims can provide us with the necessary tools. For this, the standard theory of speech acts has to be amended in several respects and the conversational maxims have to be translated into speech act conditions. Making use of the rules for communication thus arrived at, and starting from the distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion as specified in the pragma-dialectical model, it is then demonstrated how indirect speech acts are to be transformed when reconstructing argumentative discourse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cole, P. and L. Morgan (eds.): 1975, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, J. Robert and Charles Arthur Willard (eds.): 1982, Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robert T. and Karen Tracy (eds.): 1983, Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, Willis: 1981, Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis, Longman, London, Longman Linguistics Library 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H.: 1986, ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse’, Text 6(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H.: 1987a, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates', in Wenzel et al. (eds.), pp. 9–24.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H.: 1987b, ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in van Eemeren et al. (eds.), pp. 201-15.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1982, ‘Unexpressed Premisses: Part I’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 19, 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1983, ‘Unexpressed Premisses: Part II’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 19, 215–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson, Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1987, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 1(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1988, ‘Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 2(2), 271–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: (to be published) ‘The Analysis and Evaluation of Discursive Texts’.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: (to be published) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies.

  • van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard (eds.): 1987, Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference in Argumentation 1986, Foris, Dordrecht/Providence, Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. Paul: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in Cole and Morgan (eds.), pp. 43–58.

  • Grootendorst, Rob: 1987, ‘Everyday Argumentation from a Speech Act Perspective’, in Wenzel et al. (eds.), pp. 165-75.

  • Jackson, Sally: 1985, ‘What Can Speech Acts Do for Argumentation Theory?’ in Cox et al. (eds.), pp. 127-38.

  • Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs: 1980, ‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’, The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs: 1981, ‘The Collaborative Production of Proposals in Conversational Argument and Persuasion: A Study of Disagreement Regulation’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 18, 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs: 1982, ‘Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in Cox and Willard (eds.), pp. 205-37.

  • Jackson, Sally and Scott Jacobs: 1983, ‘Speech Acts Structure in Conversation. Rational Aspects of Pragmatic Coherence’, in Craig and Tracy (eds.), pp. 47–66.

  • Levinson, Stephen C.: 1983, Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, etc., Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R.: 1970, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R.: 1979, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, Joseph W., Malcolm O. Sillars and Gregg B. Walker (eds.): 1987, Argument and Critical Practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, Utah, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse. Argumentation 3, 367–383 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182604

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182604

Key words

Navigation