Abstract
Normative pragmatics can bridge the differences between dialectical and rhetorical theories in a way that saves the central insights of both. Normative pragmatics calls attention to how the manifest strategic design of a message produces interpretive effects and interactional consequences. Argumentative analysis of messages should begin with the manifest persuasive rationale they communicate. But not all persuasive inducements should be treated as arguments. Arguments express with a special pragmatic force propositions where those propositions stand in particular inferential relations to one another. Normative pragmatics provides a framework within which varieties of propositional inference and pragmatic force may be kept straight. Normative pragmatics conceptualizes argumentative effectiveness in a way that integrates notions of rhetorical strategy and rhetorical situation with dialectical norms and procedures for reasonable deliberation. Strategic effectiveness should be seen in terms of maximizing the chances that claims and arguments will be reasonably evaluated, whether or not they are accepted. Procedural rationality should be seen in terms of adjustment to the demands of concrete circumstances. Two types of adjustment are illustrated: rhetorical strategies for framing the conditions for dialectical deliberation and rhetorical strategies for making do with limitations to dialectical deliberation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aldrich, A. A.: 1995, ‘Locating Fallacies and Reconstructing Arguments’, in S. Jackson (ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 519-524.
Atkinson, J. M.: 1984, Our Masters' Voices, Methuen, London.
Atlas, J. D.: 2000, Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish: 1979, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Blair, J. A.: 1998, ‘The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument’, Argumentation 12, 325-339.
Blair, J. A. and R. H. Johnson: 1987, ‘Argumentation as Dialectical’, Argumentation 1, 41-56.
Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Burke, K.: 1950/1969, A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles.
Davis, W. A.: 1998, Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse,' in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 201-215.
Eemeren, F. H. van.: 1990, ‘The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, Text 10, 37-44.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1974, ‘Object en Doelstelling van Taalbeheersing’, Spektator.Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek 3, 413-432.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1983, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1997, ‘Argumentation’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies.Vol.1: Discourse as Structure and Process, Sage, London, pp. 208-229.
Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2000, ‘Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds’, Argumentation 14, 293-305.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, F. Snoeck Henkemans, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D. N. Walton, C. A. Willard, J. Woods and D. Zarefsky: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Goffman, E.: 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor, New York.
Green, G. M.: 1996, Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
Grice, H. P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hoaglund, J.: 1998, ‘Informal Logic: The Two Schools’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 348-352.
Horn, L. R.: 1984, ‘Toward a New Taxonomy for Pragmatic Inference: Q-based and R-based Implicature’, in D. Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, Form, and Use in Context, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, pp. 11-42.
Jacobs, S.: 1989, ‘Speech Acts and Arguments’, Argumentation 3, 23-43.
Jacobs, S.: 1995, ‘Implicatures and Deception in the Arguments of Commercial Advertising’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Special Fields and Cases: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. IV, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 579-592.
Jacobs, S.: 1998, ‘Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 397-403.
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, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 43-61.
Johnson, R. H.: 1996a, ‘The Need for a Dialectical Tier in Arguments,' in D. M. Gabbay and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.), Practical Reasoning: International Conference on Formal and Applied Practical Reasoning, Springer, Berlin, pp. 349-360.
Johnson, R. H.: 1996b, ‘Argumentation: A Pragmatic Perspective,' in The Rise of Informal Logic: Essays on Argumentation, Critical Thinking, Reasoning and Politics, Vale Press, Newport News, VA, pp. 104-114.
Leff, M.: 1998, ‘Rhetorical Prolepsis and the Dialectical Tier of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth ISSA Conference on Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 510-513.
Leech, G. N.: 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London.
Levinson, S. C.: 1987, ‘Minimization and Conversational Inference’, in J. Verschueren and M. Bertuccelli-Papi (eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 61-129.
Levinson, S. C.: 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops: 1997, May 9, ‘Killing Mostly-born Infants with a Pair of Scissors. We're debating this?’, USA TODAY, sec. D, p. 12.
National Organization for Women: 1999, June 23, ‘TALKING ABOUT ABORTION PROCEDURE BANS’, Http://www.now.org/issues/abortion... /aaa0C8jCZ70c8f6&NS-docoffset= 0&.
Oil of Olay: 1994, Aug. 29, ‘A Guarantee with no Wrinkles’, People Magazine, p. 74.
Oil of Olay: 1996, Sept., ‘Oil-Free Oil of Olay. Your Skin Knows It Works’, Mademoiselle Magazine.
O'Keefe, D. J.: 1982, ‘The Concepts of Arguing and Argument’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale & Edwardsville, pp. 3-23.
Osborn, M.: 1976, Orientations to Rhetorical Style, Science Research Associates, Chicago.
Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
Philip Morris USA: 1996, April 8, ‘Kids Should Not Smoke’, People Magazine, p. 43.
Pomerantz, A. M.: 1988, ‘Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy’, Communication Monographs 55, 360-373.
R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co: 1984, Dec. 31, ‘Smoking in Public: Let's Separate Fact from Friction’, Time, p. 37.
Schegloff, E. A. and H. Sacks: 1973, ‘Opening up Closings’, Semiotica 7, 289-327.
Schiappa, E.: 1995, ‘Introduction’, in E. Schiappa (ed.), Warranting Assent, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. ix-xxix.
Searle, J. R.: 1979, Expression and Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Slot, P.: 1994, ‘Reconstructing Indirect Speech Acts’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, SICSAT, Amsterdam, pp. 188-196.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.: 1992, Analyzing Complex Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Walton, D. N.: 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Penn State University Press, University Park.
Walton, D. N.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Walton, D. N.: 1998, The New Dialectic, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Walton, D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue, State University of New York Press, Albany.
Willard, C. A.: 1976, ‘On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments’, Communication Monographs 43, 308-319.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jacobs, S. Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation 14, 261–286 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191