Advertisement

Argumentation

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Sally Jackson
  • Scott Jacobs
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

Argumentation uses language to justify or refute a standpoint, with the aim of securing agreement in views. The study of argumentation typically centers on one of two objects: either interactions in which two or more people conduct or have arguments such as discussions or debates; or texts such as speeches or editorials in which a person makes an argument.

Keywords

Young People Argumentation Theory Child Molester Tobacco Company Argumentative Discourse 
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.

Further Reading

  1. As guidance to further reading, we would like to refer, first, to a comprehensive general overview of the state of the art in argumentation theory, second, to some influential monographs explaining different theoretical approaches, and, third, to some recent publications relating to the integrating notion of strategic maneuvering.Google Scholar
  2. van Eemeren, F. H., van Garssen, B., Haaften, T., van Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. The Handbook offers an introduction to argumentation theory, an explanation of its classical and modern theoretical backgrounds, and a comprehensive overview of the most prominent current approaches.Google Scholar
  4. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  7. Each of these three monographs explains a particular theoretical approach to argumentative discourse: Johnson and informal logic approach, van Eemeren and Grootendorst the pragma-dialectical approach, and Walton and Krabbe a related dialectical approach.Google Scholar
  8. Jacobs, S. (2006). Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s daisy ad. Argumentation, 20, 421–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Tindale, C. W. (2006). Constrained maneuvering: Rhetoric as a rational enterprise. Argumentation, 20, 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Zarefsky, D. (2006). Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20, 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van Eemeren’s monograph offers a theoretical approach to strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse as aimed at the simultaneous pursuit of rhetorical effectiveness and maintaining dialectical reasonableness. Jacobs, Tindale, and Zarefsky present three particular views on argumentative discourse that are, each in their own way, pertinent to examining strategic maneuvering.Google Scholar

References

  1. Associated Press. (1993). Women are more likely to be murdered at work than men, study finds. Arizona Daily Star, 2 October, A5.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, J. A., & Johnson, R. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleiberg, S., & Churchill, L. (1977). Notes on confrontation in conversation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coulter, J. (1990). Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 181–203). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, and University Press of America.Google Scholar
  5. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  6. Fogelin, R., & Sinott-Armstrong, W. (1992). Understanding arguments: An introduction to informal logic (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  7. Goodnight, G. T. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.Google Scholar
  8. Goodwin, M. H. (1983). Aggravated correction and disagreement in children’s conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 7, 657–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Govier, T. (1988). A practical study of argument (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  10. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, T. (1996). Are public opinion polls used illegitimately 47 % say yes. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argument and Values: Proceedings of the Ninth SCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobs, S. (1986). How to make an argument from example in discourse analysis. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 149–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205–237). Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical self-defense (1st ed., 1977). Belgium: International Debate Association.Google Scholar
  17. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (1st ed., 1990). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Brussels: University of Brussels.Google Scholar
  19. Schiffrin, D. (1984). Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society, 13, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (1st ed., 1958). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Toulmin, S. E. (1970). An examination of the place of reason in ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrechts-Holland: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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 Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). More about fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The case of tu quoque’. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its Applications: Proceedings of the Conference Organised by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation in May 2001, CD-ROM. Windsor, Ontario: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  28. Walton, D. N. (1989). Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Walton, D. N. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  30. Willard, C. A. (1982). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  31. Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argument. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sally Jackson
    • 1
  • Scott Jacobs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations