Advertisement

A Pragma-Dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Rob Grootendorst
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

In a critical discussion that proceeds in accordance with a pragma-dialectical discussion procedure, the protagonist and the antagonist try to find out systematically whether the protagonist’s standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist’s criticism.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Propositional Content Argument Scheme Argumentative Discussion Critical Reaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  3. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht-Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  4. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). A pragmatic view of the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.). Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations