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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cole, P. and L. Morgan (eds.): 1975, Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York.
Cox, J. Robert and Charles Arthur Willard (eds.): 1982, Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Craig, Robert T. and Karen Tracy (eds.): 1983, Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Edmondson, Willis: 1981, Spoken Discourse. A Model for Analysis, Longman, London, Longman Linguistics Library 27.
van Eemeren, Frans H.: 1986, ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse’, Text 6(1), 1–16.
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.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1983, ‘Unexpressed Premisses: Part II’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 19, 215–25.
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.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1987, ‘Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 1(3), 283–301.
van Eemeren, Frans H. and Rob Grootendorst: 1988, ‘Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 2(2), 271–91.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Searle, John R.: 1970, Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Searle, John R.: 1979, Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson: 1986, Relevance: Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights 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
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182604