Abstract
The hypothesis of this chapter is that the Pragma-Dialectical theory is one particular version—the Amsterdam version—of a general pragma-dialectical type of theory. It is thus possible to accept the general theory without accepting every feature of the specific instance of that theory, but not conversely. Another implication is that the general theory might have other versions that apply where the Pragma-Dialectical theory strictly-construed does not, and so, by being more general, the former is more powerful than the latter. I outline six of the distinctive characteristics of the Pragma-Dialectical approach, then catalogue nine possible lines of criticism of that approach that are consistent with taking a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. I argue that, if successful, some of the criticisms undermine the Pragma-Dialectical version of pragma-dialectics, whereas others just require repairs or modifications.
From Agnes van Rees and Peter Houtlosser (Eds.), Festschrift in Honour of Frans H. van Eemeren, Ch. 2 (pp. 11–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006. Reprinted with permission. My thanks to Ralph H. Johnson for many helpful comments, and to June Blair for helpful copy-editing and proofreading.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la Langue. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.
Blair, J. A. (1998). The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation, 12(2), 325–339.
Blair, J. A. (2004). Argument and its uses. Informal Logic, 24(2), 137–151.
Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Intention, convention and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002a). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Goldman, A. I. (1999). Knowledge in a social world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodwin, J. (2001). Good argument without resolution. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 255–259). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.
Hansen, H. V. (2003). The rabbit in the hat: where do dialectical rules come from? In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkmans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 433–436). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Jacobs, S. (1999). Argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286.
Johnson, R. H. (1995). Informal logic and pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 237–245). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Johnson, R. H. (2000a). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Laar, Jan Albert van. (2005). One-sided arguments. In D. Hitchcock (Ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (pp. 297–306). Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argument.
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walton, D. N. (1992c). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 133–147). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Woods, J. (1992). Who cares about the fallacies? In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 23–48). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 289–292). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Grice, P. (1989). Logic and conversation. In P. Grice (Ed.), Studies in the way of words, Ch. 2 (pp. 22–40). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blair, J.A. (2012). Pragma-Dialectics and Pragma-Dialectics . In: Tindale, C. (eds) Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 21. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2363-4_20
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-2362-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-2363-4
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)