Abstract
The purpose of this research review is to examine the usefulness of reconstructing problematic interpersonal conflict behavior as violations of rules for critical discussions. Dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior sheds light on the ways in which dialectical fallacies influence not only the course of a critical discussion, but also the personal and relationship outcomes experienced by arguers. Conflict sequences such as cross complaining and demand/withdraw are shown to be problematic, in part, because they prevent parties from resolving their difference through rational dialogue. The paper concludes by presenting some implications of the pragma-dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Alberts, J. K.: 1988, 'An Analysis of Couples' Conversational Complaints', Communication Monographs 55, 184-197.
Alberts, J. K.: 1989, 'A Descriptive Taxonomy of Couples Complaint Interactions', Southern Communication Journal 54, 125-143.
Alberts, J. K. and G. Driscoll: 1992, 'Containment versus Escalation: The Trajectory of Couples' Conversational Complaints', Western Journal of Communication 56, 394-412.
Brockriede, W. J.: 1975, 'Where Is Argument?', The Journal of the American Forensic Association 11, 179-182.
Burgoon, M. J. and E. P. Bettinghaus: 1980, 'Persuasive Message Strategies', in G. R. Miller and M. E. Roloff (eds.), Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 141-170.
Canary, D. J. and B. H. Spitzberg: 1989, 'A Model of the Perceived Competence of Conflict Tactics', Human Communication Research 15,630-649.
Canary, D. J. and H. Weger, Jr.: 1993, 'Competence Assessments of Interpersonal Argument Structures: An Observational Analysis', in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 252-259.
Canary, D. J., H. Weger, Jr. and L. Stafford: 1991, 'Couples' Argument Sequences and their Associations with Relational Characteristics', Western Journal of Speech Communication 55, 159-179.
Canary, D. J., J. Brossmann, B. G. Brossmann and H. Weger, Jr.: 1995, 'Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analyses of Episode-specific Effects of Argument Structures', Communication Monographs 62, 183-212.
Canary, D. J., B. G. Brossmann, A. L. Sillars and S. LoVette: 1987, 'Married Couples' Argument Structures and Sequences: A Comparison of Satisfied and Dissatisfied Dyads', in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 477-483.
Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, 'For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse', in F. G. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris/Mouton de Gruyter, Dordrecht/Berlin, pp. 201-216.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, LEA, London.
Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1998, 'Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-dialectical Reconstructions', in J. G. Klumpp (ed.), Agrument in a TIme of Change: Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, NCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 51-57.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Gottman, J. M.: 1979, Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations, Academic Press, New York.
Gottman, J. M.: 1994, What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship of Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
Gottman, J. M.: 1995, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, Simon & Schuster, New York.
Gottman, J. M., J. Coan, S. Carrere and C. Swanson: 1998, February, 'Predicting Marital happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions', Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 5-22.
Heavy, C. L., C. Layne and A. Christensen: 1993, 'Gender and Conflict Structure in Marital Interaction: A Replication and Extension', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61, 16-27.
Hocker, J. L. and W. W. Wilmot: 1995, Interpersonal Conflict 4th ed., Brown and Benchmark, Madison, WI.
Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, 'Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme', Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251-265.
Jacobs, S.: 1993, 'The Problem of Indirect Communication for Descriptive and Normative Models of Argumentation: Teddy Kennedy Drives off the Bridge at Chappaquiddick', in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argumetn and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 194-200.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1992, 'Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach, Argumentation 6, 161-176.
Jacobs, S., S. Jackson, S. Stearns and B. Hall: 1991, 'Digressions in Argumentative Discourse: Multiple Goals, Standing Concerns, and Implicatures', in K. Tracy (ed.), Understanding Face-to-face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse, LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 43-61.
Johnson, K. L. and M. E. Roloff: 1998, 'Serial Arguing and Relational Quality', Communication Research 25(3), 327-344.
Matoesian, G. M.: 1993, Reproducing Rape: Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
O'Keefe, D. J.: 1997, 'Two Concepts of Argument', The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3), 121-128.
Pearce, W. B. and V. E. Cronen: 1980, Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of Social Realities, Praeger, New York.
Retzinger, S. M.: 1991, Violent Emotions: Shame and Rage in Marital Quarrels, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Sillars, A. L. and Wilmot: 1991, 'Communication Strategies in Conflict and Mediation', in J. Wiemann and J. Daly (eds.), Communicating Strategically: Strategies in Interpersonal Communication, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 163-190.
Trapp, R.: 1983, 'Generic Characteristics of Argumentation in Everyday Discourse', in D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, and J. Rhodes (eds.), Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 516-530.
Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1982, 'Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases', in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 3-22.
Walton, D. N.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.
Watson, R.: 1978, 'Categorization, Authorization, and Blame in Negotiation in Conversation', Sociology 12, 105-113.
Watzlawick, P., J. B. Bavelas, and D. D. Jackson: 1967, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional patterns, Pathologies, and paradoxes, Norton, New York.
Weger, H., Jr. and S. Jacobs: 1995, 'The Burden of Going Forward with the Argument: Argumentative Relevance in pragma-Dialectics', in S. Jackson (ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 525-531.
Zillman, D: 1990, 'The Interplay of Cognition and Excitation in Aggravated Conflict Among Intimates', in D. D. Cahn (ed.), Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weger, H. Pragma-dialectical Theory and Interpersonal Interaction Outcomes: Unproductive Interpersonal Behavior as Violations of Rules for Critical Discussion. Argumentation 15, 313–330 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011117411938
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011117411938