, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 233–242 | Cite as

On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage

Open Access


Any well-structured argumentative exchange must be preceded by some preparatory stages. In the pragma-dialectical four-stage model of critical discussion, the clarification of issues and positions is relegated to the confrontation stage and the other preparatory matters are dealt within the opening stage. In the opening stage, the parties involved come to agree to discuss their differences and to do so by an argumentative exchange rather than by, say, a sequence of bids and offers. They should also come to agree on the rules of dialogue, on roles, on logical principles, on types of argument, and on the propositions that can be used as basic premises. All in all, a lot of work needs to be done before the first topical argument can be put forward. Especially the opening stage seems prone to further disagreements and protracted discussions, e.g., about the admissibility of particular kinds of argument or particular basic premises. There is also the problem that a successful opening stage threatens to settle matters beforehand and thus put the argumentation stage out of business. The paper suggests some measures that could alleviate the workload of the opening stage, without making the argumentation stage otiose.


completion problem critical discussion fixity problem metadialogue opening stage pragma-dialectics 


  1. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 1984 Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, NJ/Hove, Hillsdale and Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Freeman J. B. 2005 Acceptable Premises: An Epistemic Approach to an Informal Logic Problem, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Krabbe, Erik C. W.: 2003, ‹Metadialogues,’ in Frans H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Anyone Who has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of argumentation, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht [etc.], pp. 83–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical PhilosophyUniversity of Groningen9712 GL GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations