, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 145–165 | Cite as

Negotiation and Deliberation: Grasping the Difference



Negotiation and deliberation are two context types or genres of discourse widely studied in the argumentation literature. Within the pragma-dialectical framework, they have been characterised in terms of the conventions constraining the use of argumentative discourse in each of them. Thanks to these descriptions, it has become possible to analyse the arguers’ strategic manoeuvres and carry out more systematic, context-sensitive evaluations of argumentative discussions. However, one issue that still must be addressed in the pragma-dialectical theory—and other contextual approaches to argumentation—is how to distinguish negotiation and deliberation in practice. In this paper, I seek to develop criteria that can help the analyst identify them in discourse. To this end, I characterise the felicity conditions of the superordinate speech acts defining and structuring deliberation and negotiation encounters.


Negotiation Deliberation Offer Proposal Superordinate speech act 



I would like to thank T. M. Edwards, D. Godden, J. Goodwin, C. Joannon, M. Lewinski, D. Mohammed, F. Snoeck Henkemans and R. Valenzuela for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Aakhus, M. 2005. The act and activity of proposing in deliberation, paper presented at the ALTA conference, August.Google Scholar
  2. Amgoud, L., and S. Vesic. 2012. A formal analysis of the role of argumentation in negotiation dialogues. Journal of Logic and Computation 5(22): 957–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1926. The Art of Rhetoric (trans: Freese J.H.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fairclough, N. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Fisher, R. 1983. Negotiating power, getting and using influence. The American Behavioural 27(2): 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  7. Goodin, R. 2000. Democratic deliberation within. Philosophy and Public Affairs 29(1): 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hitchcock, D., P. McBurney, and S. Parsons. 2007. The eightfold way of deliberation dialogue. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 22(1): 95–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson, S., and S. Jacobs. 1980. Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quaterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1983. Speech act structure in conversation. Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In Conversational coherence: form, structure and strategy, ed. R.T. Craig, and K. Tracy, 47–66. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Kauffeld, F. 1998. Presumption and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12(2): 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Prakken, H., and J. van Veenen. 2006. A protocol for arguing about rejections in negotiation. In Argumentation in multi-agent systems, ed. S. Parsons, N. Maudet, P. Moraitis, and I. Rahwan, 138–153. Berlin: Springer Lecture Notes in AI 4049.Google Scholar
  13. Rawls, J. 1955. Two concepts of rules. The Philosophical Review 64(1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sawyer, J., and H. Guetzkow. 1965. Bargaining and negotiation in international relations. In International behaviour: A social-psychological analysis, ed. H. Kelman. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  15. Searle, J. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Searle, J. 1999 [1979]. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Searle, J., and D. Vanderveken. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Tiersma, P. 1986. The language of offer and acceptance: speech act and the question of intent. California Law Review 74(1): 189–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Toulmin, S., A. Janik, and R. Rieke. 1979. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Tutzauer, F. 1992. The communication of offers in dyadic bargaining. In Communication and negotiation, ed. L.L. Putnam, and M.E. Roloff, 67–82. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson, and S. Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  24. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 75–84. Windsor: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, C. Ihnen, and M. Lewiński. 2010. Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument, ed. C. Reed, and C. Tindale, 115–132. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  26. van Poppel, Lotte. 2013. Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UvA-Dare (
  27. Walton, D. 1992. Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, and C.A. Willard, 133–147. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  28. Walton, D. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  29. Walton, D. 2006. How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue. Artificial Intelligence and Law 14(3): 177–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Walton, D., and E. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Walton, R., and R. McKersie. 1992. A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Derecho, Instituto de ArgumentaciónUniversidad de ChileProvidenciaChile

Personalised recommendations