Abstract
The paper introduces a new model of argumentation, the Mixed Game Model, that no longer separates rule-governed competence from actual performance but starts from human beings and their ability of competence-in-performance. Human beings are able to orientate themselves in ever-changing surroundings and to negotiate diverging views in argumentative action games. Argumentation is thus described as a mixed game played by human beings according to principles of probability. These principles include constitutive, regulative and executive principles. Constitutive Principles focus on the basic components of the game, that is, action, dialogue, and coherence as the interplay of different communicative means. Regulative Principles mediate between correlated human abilities and interests. Executive Principles guide the sequencing of action according to cognitive strategies. The mixed game no longer rests on pre-established harmony but describes performance as a non-equilibrial process of negotiation that mediates between order and disorder and is based on the integration of various parameters such as rationality, reason, persuasion and emotion. How the model works is exemplified by an analysis of part of a debate in the European Parliament.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cattani A. 2001, Botta e risposta. L’arte della replica. Il Mulino, Bologna
Damasio A. 2000, The Feeling of what Happens. Body, emotion and the making of consciousness, Vintage, London
Dascal M. 1994, Speech Act Theory and Gricean Pragmatics: Some differences of detail that make a difference in: Tsohatzidis S. L. (ed.), Foundations of Speech Act Theory. Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, Routledge, London, New York pp 323–334
Dascal M., Gross A. G. 1999, The Marriage of Pragmatics and Rhetoric Philosophy and Rhetoric 32(2): 107–130
Harris R. 1981, The Language Myth. Duckworth, London
Harris R. 1998, Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Elsevier, Oxford
Jacobs S., Jackson S. 1982, Conversational Argument: A discourse analytic approach in: Cox J. R., Willard C. A. (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, Edwardsville pp 205–237
Kallmeyer W. 1996, Gesprächsrhetorik. Rhetorische Verfahren im Gesprächsprozess, Narr, Tübingen
Martinet, A.: 1975, ‚Functional Linguistics. La linguistique fonctionnelle’ in: A. Martinet, Studies in Functional Syntax. Études de syntaxe fonctionnelle, Fink, München, pp. 9–81
Moeschler J. 1985, Argumentation et Conversation. Éléments pour une analyse pragmatique du discours, Hatier, Paris
Perelman C. 1977, L’empire rhétorique. Rhétorique et argumentation, J. Vrin, Paris
Piattelli Palmarini M. 1995, L’arte di persuadere. Come impararla, come esercitarla, come difendersene, Mondatori, Milano
Plantin C. 1996, L’argumentation, Seuil, Paris
Prigogine I. 1997, The End of Certainty. Time, Chaos, and the New Laws of Nature, The Free Press, New York etc
Sacks H., Schegloff E. A., Jefferson G. 1978, A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation. in Schenkein J. N. (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction, Academic Press, New York etc., pp 7–56
Searle, J. R.: 1972, Chomsky’s Revolution in Linguistics. The New York Review of Books 18(12), June 29, 16–24
Searle J. R. 1979, A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts, in: Searle J. R., (ed.) Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge etc., pp 1–29
Searle J. R.: 1992, ‚Conversation’ in Searle J. R., et al. (On) Searle on Conversation, Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp. 7–30
Stati S. 2002, Principi di analisi argomentativa. Retorica, logica, linguistica, Pàtron editore, Bologna
Toulmin S. 1958, The Uses of Argument, At the University Press, Cambridge
Toulmin S. 2001, Return to Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge/Mass., London
van Eemeren F. H. (ed.): 2001, Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Sic Sat, Amsterdam
van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. 1999, Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse Discourse Studies 1: 479–497
van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht, Cinnaminson
van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge University Press Cambridge
van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, London
van Rees M. A. 1992, The Adequacy of Speech Act Theory for Explaining Conversational Phenomena: A response to Some Conversation Analytical Critics Journal of Pragmatics 17: 31–47
Weigand E. 1988, Historische Sprachpragmatik am Beispiel: Gesprächsstrukturen im Nibelungenlied Zeitschrift für deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 117: 159–173
Weigand, E. 1999, ‚Rhetoric and Argumentation in a Dialogic Perspective, in: Rigotti E. (ed., in collaboration with S. Cigada), Rhetoric and Argumentation, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp. 53–69
Weigand E. 2000a, The Dialogic Action Game, in Coulthard M., Cotterill J., Rock F. (eds.), Dialogue Analysis VII. Working with dialogue, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp 1–18
Weigand E. 2000b, Coherence in Discourse: A never-ending problem, in Beck mann S., König P.-P., Wolf G. (eds.), Sprachspiel und Bedeutung. Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 65. Geburtstag, Niemeyer, Tübingen, pp 267–274
Weigand E. 2001, Games of Power, in Weigand E., Dascal M. (eds.), Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction, Benjamins, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, pp 63–76
Weigand E. 2002, The Language Myth and Linguistics Humanised, in Harris R. (ed.), The Language Myth in Western Culture, Curzon, Richmond, Surrey, pp 55–83
Weigand, E.: 2003a, Argomentazione giuridica, uno sguardo europeo, in A. Mariani Marini (a cura di), Teoria e tecnica dell’argomentazione giuridica, Giuffrè (Consiglio Nazionale Forense), Milano, pp. 23–32
Weigand, E. 2003b, Sprache als Dialog. Sprechakttaxonomie und kommunikative Grammatik, 2nd rev. ed., Niemeyer, Tübingen
Willard C. A. 1989, A Theory of Argumentation, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, London
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Weigand, E. Argumentation: The Mixed Game. Argumentation 20, 59–87 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4