Argumentation

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 465–479

Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussion

  • M. A. van Rees
Article

Abstract

In this article, after arguing that present approaches to improving problem-solving discussions for various reasons are not satisfactory, I turn to the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentative discourse to derive a normative framework that can serve as a point of departure to enhance the quality of problem-solving discussions. I then show how this approach can be used as analytical and evaluative instrument that can help the analyst to establish whether participants in actual practice act in a fashion that is in accord with the norms posited. Two real-life problem-solving discussions provide the material for this demonstration.

conversation analysis pragma-dialectics problem-solving discussion 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bales, R. F.: 1950, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  2. Bublitz, W.: 1988, Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations. Discourse Topics and Ttopical Actions, Participant Roles and Recipient Action in a Particular Type of Everyday Conversation, Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Cheepen, C.: 1988, The Predictability of Informal Conversation, Pinter, London.Google Scholar
  4. Dewey, J.: 1910, How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston.Google Scholar
  5. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, De Gruyter/Foris, Berlin etc.Google Scholar
  6. Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  7. Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa etc.Google Scholar
  8. Fisher, B. A.: 1970, ‘Decision Emergence: Phases in Group Decision-making’, Speech Monographs 37, 53–66.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, B. A.: 1980, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Frey, L. R.: 1996, ‘Remembering and “Re-membering': A History of Theory and Research on Communication and Group Decision Making’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making (2nd edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 19–55.Google Scholar
  11. Gouran, D. S.: 1988, ‘Group Decision Making: An Approach to Integrative Research’, in C. H. Tardy (ed.), A Handbook for the Study of Human Communication, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 247–267.Google Scholar
  12. Gouran, D. S. et al.: 1978, ‘Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions of Quality in Decisionmaking Discussions’, Communication Monographs 45, 51–63.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, III: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, 41–58.Google Scholar
  14. Hirokawa, R. Y. et al.: 1996, ‘Communication and Group Decision-making Effectiveness’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making (2nd edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 269–301.Google Scholar
  15. Jordan, M. P.: 1984, Rhetoric of Everyday English Texts, Allen & Unwin, London.Google Scholar
  16. Pomerantz, A.: 1984, ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes’, in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 57–102.Google Scholar
  17. Poole, M. S.: 1981, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups I: A Comparison of Two Models’, Communication Monographs 48, 1–24.Google Scholar
  18. Poole, M. S.: 1983, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups III: A Multiple Sequence Theory of Decision Development’, Communication Monographs 50, 321–341.Google Scholar
  19. Poole, M. S. and J. Roth: 1989, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups IV: A Typology of Group Decision Paths’, Human Communication Research 15, 323–356.Google Scholar
  20. Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson: 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation’, Language 50(4), 696–735.Google Scholar
  21. Schegloff, E. A.: 1982, ‘Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences’, in D. Tannen (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 71–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. van Rees
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations