Argumentation

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 261–286 | Cite as

Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics

  • Scott Jacobs
Article

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.

argumentation dialectic discourse analysis fallacy rhetoric 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. Atkinson, J. M.: 1984, Our Masters' Voices, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  3. Atlas, J. D.: 2000, Logic, Meaning, and Conversation: Semantical Underdeterminacy, Implicature, and Their Interface, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K. and R. M. Harnish: 1979, Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, J. A.: 1998, ‘The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument’, Argumentation 12, 325-339.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, J. A. and R. H. Johnson: 1987, ‘Argumentation as Dialectical’, Argumentation 1, 41-56.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P. and S. C. Levinson: 1987, Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Burke, K.: 1950/1969, A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, W. A.: 1998, Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Eemeren, F. H. van.: 1990, ‘The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, Text 10, 37-44.Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1974, ‘Object en Doelstelling van Taalbeheersing’, Spektator.Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek 3, 413-432.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  15. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E.: 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Green, G. M.: 1996, Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  21. Grice, H. P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  22. 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.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, S.: 1989, ‘Speech Acts and Arguments’, Argumentation 3, 23-43.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. Leech, G. N.: 1983, Principles of Pragmatics, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Levinson, S. C.: 2000, Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  34. 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.Google Scholar
  35. National Organization for Women: 1999, June 23, ‘TALKING ABOUT ABORTION PROCEDURE BANS’, Http://www.now.org/issues/abortion... /aaa0C8jCZ70c8f6&NS-docoffset= 0&.Google Scholar
  36. Oil of Olay: 1994, Aug. 29, ‘A Guarantee with no Wrinkles’, People Magazine, p. 74.Google Scholar
  37. Oil of Olay: 1996, Sept., ‘Oil-Free Oil of Olay. Your Skin Knows It Works’, Mademoiselle Magazine.Google Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Osborn, M.: 1976, Orientations to Rhetorical Style, Science Research Associates, Chicago.Google Scholar
  40. Perelman, C.: 1982, The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  41. Philip Morris USA: 1996, April 8, ‘Kids Should Not Smoke’, People Magazine, p. 43.Google Scholar
  42. Pomerantz, A. M.: 1988, ‘Offering a Candidate Answer: An Information Seeking Strategy’, Communication Monographs 55, 360-373.Google Scholar
  43. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co: 1984, Dec. 31, ‘Smoking in Public: Let's Separate Fact from Friction’, Time, p. 37.Google Scholar
  44. Schegloff, E. A. and H. Sacks: 1973, ‘Opening up Closings’, Semiotica 7, 289-327.Google Scholar
  45. Schiappa, E.: 1995, ‘Introduction’, in E. Schiappa (ed.), Warranting Assent, State University of New York Press, Albany, pp. ix-xxix.Google Scholar
  46. Searle, J. R.: 1979, Expression and Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.: 1992, Analyzing Complex Argumentation, SICSAT, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  49. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  50. Walton, D. N.: 1992, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Penn State University Press, University Park.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D. N.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D. N.: 1998, The New Dialectic, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  53. Walton, D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue, State University of New York Press, Albany.Google Scholar
  54. Willard, C. A.: 1976, ‘On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments’, Communication Monographs 43, 308-319.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of ArizonaTucsonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations