Advertisement

The Case of Pragma-Dialectics

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
  • Peter Houtlosser
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4049)

Abstract

The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation aims to provide a sound integration of both dialectics — the study of critical exchanges — and pragmatics — the study of language use in actual communication. Pragma dialectics thus combines a dialectical view of argumentative reasonableness with a pragmatic view of the verbal moves made in argumentative discourse. This paper provides an overview of the current state of the pragma-dialectical approach, insofar as this can be done adequately in a single paper, and provides many pointers to the full range of work in this area.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argument Scheme Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering Argumentative Move 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Albert, H.: Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Mohr, 3rd edn. (1975) (Ist edn. 1967)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1962)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barth, E.M., Krabbe, E.C.W.: From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin (1982)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biro, J., Siegel, H.: Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A. (eds.) Argumentation Illuminated, pp. 85–103. Sic Sat, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Crawshay-Williams, R.: Methods and Criteria of Reasoning: An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1957)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Eemeren, F.H. (ed.): Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Eemeren, F.H.: Fallacies. In: Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory [6]Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Eemeren, F.H. (ed.): Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B.J., Meuffels, B.: The unreasonableness of the ad baculum fallacy. In: Goodnight, T. (ed.) Arguing Communication & Culture. Selected Papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, pp. 343–350. National Communication Association, Washington (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Foris/Mouton de Gruyter, Dordrecht/Berlin (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 2, 271–291 (1988); also published in [14, pp.11–28]Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Rules for argumentation in dialogues. Argumentation 2, 499–510 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (eds.): Studies in Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Meuffels, B.: Ordinary arguers judgements on ad hominem fallacies. In: van Eemeren [8], pp. 45–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Meuffels, B., Verburg, M.: The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology 19, 416–435 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.: Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., Jacobs, S.: Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P.: Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In: Klumpp, J.F. (ed.) Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, National Communication Association, Annandale, VA. Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, Utah, pp. 51–56 (August 1997)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P.: Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In: [25], pp. 131–159Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P.: Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Discourse Studies 1, 479–497 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P.: Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis within a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocay 37, 150–157 (2000)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P.: Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation 14, 293–305 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (eds.): Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R.R., Meuffels, B.: The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 25, 239–245 (1989); also included in [14], pp. 119–129 Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Grice, H.P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Habermas, J.: Vorbereitende bemerkungen zu einer theorie der kommunikativen kompetenz. In: Habermas, J., Luhmann, H. (eds.) Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie. Was leistet die Systemforschung? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, pp. 107–141 (1971)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hamblin, C.L.: Fallacies. Methuen, London (reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press) (1970)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Snoeck Henkemans, A.F.: Analysing Complex Argumentation. In: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion. Sic Sat, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heritage, J.: A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson, J.M., Heritage, J. (eds.) Structures of Social Action, Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299–346. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Houtlosser, P.: The speech act “advancing a standpoint”. In: Eemeren and Grootendorst [14], pp. 165–171Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jackson, S.: “virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In: Argumentation Illuminated, vol. 1, pp. 260–269. Sic Sat, Amsterdam (1992)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jackson, S.: Fallacies and heuristics (Analysis and Evaluation). In: Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, vol. II, pp. 260–269. Sic Sat, Amsterdam (1994)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jackson, S., Jacobs, S.: Of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251–265 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jacobs, S., Jackson, S.: Argument as a natural category: the routine grounds for arguing in natural conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 118–132 (1981)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacobs, S., Jackson, S.: Conversational argument: a discourse analytic approach. In: Cox, J.R., Willard, C.A. (eds.) Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, pp. 205–237. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (1982)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jacobs, S., Jackson, S.: Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs 50, 285–304 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Johnson, R.: Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Mental Models. Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kennedy, G.A.: A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1994)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Leff, M.: Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation 14, 241–254 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Levinson, S.C.: Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lorenzen, P., Lorenz, K.: Dialogische Logik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt (1978)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Naess, A.: Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics. Allen & Unwin, London (1947) (English translation of Om meningsytring. En del elementaere logiske emner, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1947)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nisbett, R., Ross, L.: Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1980)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    O’Keefe, D.J.: The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In: Eemeren [8], pp. 65–82Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Popper, K.R.: The Open Society and its Enemies, 5th edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1971)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Popper, K.R.: Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1972)Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Popper, K.R.: Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London (1974)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Searle, J.R.: Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1969)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Searle, J.R.: Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Toulmin, S.E.: The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1958)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Toulmin, S.E.: Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy. Macmillan, Basingstoke (1976)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Toulmin, S.E.: Return to Reason. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Walton, D.N., Krabbe, E.C.W.: Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany (1995)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wenzel, J.W.: Jürgen habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 16, 83–94 (1979)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Willard, C.A.: Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (1983)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Willard, C.A.: A Theory of Argumentation. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa (1989)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Willard, C.A.: Liberal Alarms and Rhetorical Excursions. A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
    • 1
  • Peter Houtlosser
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Amsterdam 

Personalised recommendations