Argumentation

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 313–330 | Cite as

Pragma-dialectical Theory and Interpersonal Interaction Outcomes: Unproductive Interpersonal Behavior as Violations of Rules for Critical Discussion

  • Harry WegerJr.

Abstract

The purpose of this research review is to examine the usefulness of reconstructing problematic interpersonal conflict behavior as violations of rules for critical discussions. Dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior sheds light on the ways in which dialectical fallacies influence not only the course of a critical discussion, but also the personal and relationship outcomes experienced by arguers. Conflict sequences such as cross complaining and demand/withdraw are shown to be problematic, in part, because they prevent parties from resolving their difference through rational dialogue. The paper concludes by presenting some implications of the pragma-dialectical reconstruction of interpersonal conflict behavior.

discussion rules fallacy interpersonal conflict pragma-dialectical perspective 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Alberts, J. K.: 1988, 'An Analysis of Couples' Conversational Complaints', Communication Monographs 55, 184-197.Google Scholar
  2. Alberts, J. K.: 1989, 'A Descriptive Taxonomy of Couples Complaint Interactions', Southern Communication Journal 54, 125-143.Google Scholar
  3. Alberts, J. K. and G. Driscoll: 1992, 'Containment versus Escalation: The Trajectory of Couples' Conversational Complaints', Western Journal of Communication 56, 394-412.Google Scholar
  4. Brockriede, W. J.: 1975, 'Where Is Argument?', The Journal of the American Forensic Association 11, 179-182.Google Scholar
  5. Burgoon, M. J. and E. P. Bettinghaus: 1980, 'Persuasive Message Strategies', in G. R. Miller and M. E. Roloff (eds.), Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 141-170.Google Scholar
  6. Canary, D. J. and B. H. Spitzberg: 1989, 'A Model of the Perceived Competence of Conflict Tactics', Human Communication Research 15,630-649.Google Scholar
  7. Canary, D. J. and H. Weger, Jr.: 1993, 'Competence Assessments of Interpersonal Argument Structures: An Observational Analysis', in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argument and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 252-259.Google Scholar
  8. Canary, D. J., H. Weger, Jr. and L. Stafford: 1991, 'Couples' Argument Sequences and their Associations with Relational Characteristics', Western Journal of Speech Communication 55, 159-179.Google Scholar
  9. Canary, D. J., J. Brossmann, B. G. Brossmann and H. Weger, Jr.: 1995, 'Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analyses of Episode-specific Effects of Argument Structures', Communication Monographs 62, 183-212.Google Scholar
  10. Canary, D. J., B. G. Brossmann, A. L. Sillars and S. LoVette: 1987, 'Married Couples' Argument Structures and Sequences: A Comparison of Satisfied and Dissatisfied Dyads', in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 477-483.Google Scholar
  11. Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, 'For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse', in F. G. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris/Mouton de Gruyter, Dordrecht/Berlin, pp. 201-216.Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, LEA, London.Google Scholar
  13. Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1998, 'Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-dialectical Reconstructions', in J. G. Klumpp (ed.), Agrument in a TIme of Change: Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, NCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 51-57.Google Scholar
  14. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.Google Scholar
  15. Gottman, J. M.: 1979, Marital Interaction: Experimental Investigations, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Gottman, J. M.: 1994, What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship of Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.Google Scholar
  17. Gottman, J. M.: 1995, Why Marriages Succeed or Fail, Simon & Schuster, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Gottman, J. M., J. Coan, S. Carrere and C. Swanson: 1998, February, 'Predicting Marital happiness and Stability from Newlywed Interactions', Journal of Marriage and the Family 60, 5-22.Google Scholar
  19. Heavy, C. L., C. Layne and A. Christensen: 1993, 'Gender and Conflict Structure in Marital Interaction: A Replication and Extension', Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61, 16-27.Google Scholar
  20. Hocker, J. L. and W. W. Wilmot: 1995, Interpersonal Conflict 4th ed., Brown and Benchmark, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, 'Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme', Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251-265.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, S.: 1993, 'The Problem of Indirect Communication for Descriptive and Normative Models of Argumentation: Teddy Kennedy Drives off the Bridge at Chappaquiddick', in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Argumetn and the Postmodern Challenge: Proceedings of the Eighth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 194-200.Google Scholar
  23. Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1992, 'Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach, Argumentation 6, 161-176.Google Scholar
  24. 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, LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 43-61.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, K. L. and M. E. Roloff: 1998, 'Serial Arguing and Relational Quality', Communication Research 25(3), 327-344.Google Scholar
  26. Matoesian, G. M.: 1993, Reproducing Rape: Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  27. O'Keefe, D. J.: 1997, 'Two Concepts of Argument', The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3), 121-128.Google Scholar
  28. Pearce, W. B. and V. E. Cronen: 1980, Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of Social Realities, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Retzinger, S. M.: 1991, Violent Emotions: Shame and Rage in Marital Quarrels, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  30. Sillars, A. L. and Wilmot: 1991, 'Communication Strategies in Conflict and Mediation', in J. Wiemann and J. Daly (eds.), Communicating Strategically: Strategies in Interpersonal Communication, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 163-190.Google Scholar
  31. Trapp, R.: 1983, 'Generic Characteristics of Argumentation in Everyday Discourse', in D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, and J. Rhodes (eds.), Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the Third Summer Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 516-530.Google Scholar
  32. Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman: 1982, 'Judgement Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases', in D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 3-22.Google Scholar
  33. Walton, D. N.: 1992, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, SUNY Press, Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Watson, R.: 1978, 'Categorization, Authorization, and Blame in Negotiation in Conversation', Sociology 12, 105-113.Google Scholar
  35. Watzlawick, P., J. B. Bavelas, and D. D. Jackson: 1967, Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional patterns, Pathologies, and paradoxes, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  36. Weger, H., Jr. and S. Jacobs: 1995, 'The Burden of Going Forward with the Argument: Argumentative Relevance in pragma-Dialectics', in S. Jackson (ed.), Argumentation and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, SCA, Annandale, VA, pp. 525-531.Google Scholar
  37. Zillman, D: 1990, 'The Interplay of Cognition and Excitation in Aggravated Conflict Among Intimates', in D. D. Cahn (ed.), Intimates in Conflict: A Communication Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry WegerJr.
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana University SoutheastNew AlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations