Advertisement

Viewing the Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics

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

Abstract

The study of argumentation is often considered to be part of the discipline called logic, more in particular of informal logic. In our contribution we would like to make clear that the study of argumentation can also be constructively viewed as being part of pragmatics, more in particular of normative pragmatics. In doing so we start from the theoretical perspective on argumentation that is commonly known as the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. For the sake of simplicity, in discussing the pragmatic character of the pragma-dialectical approach we focus in this contribution in the first place on the speech act dimension of pragmatics. Our central question can therefore be specified as: how can it be made clear that the study of argumentation can be constructively viewed as being part of (normative) pragmatics by pointing out that the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation benefits in various respects significantly from taking a speech act perspective?

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering Reconstruction Component 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.

References

  1. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse. A model for analysis. London: etc.: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Grootendorst, R. (1987). Some fallacies about fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (Vol. 1, pp. 331–342). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  6. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, S. (1985). What speech acts do for argumentation theory? In J. R. Cox, M. O. Sillars, & G. B. Walker (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 127–138). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  8. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2005). Logical self-defense. New York: IDEA.Google Scholar
  10. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Searle, J. R. (1971). What is a speech act? In J. R. Searle (Ed.), The philosophy of language (pp. 39–53). London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. (1979). Literal meaning. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts (pp. 117–136). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Searle, J. R. (1980). An interview. Versus, 26, 17–27.Google Scholar
  15. Searle, J. R. (1986). Notes on conversation. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donahue (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language and discourse processes (pp. 7–19). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987a). For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 201–216). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  19. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987b). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices. In: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  20. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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-Cinnaminson: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1990). Analyzing argumentative discourse. In J. Wenzel (Ed.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 86–106). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 239–245.Google Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  28. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2012). The pragma-dialectical method of analysis and evaluation. In: R. C. Rowland (Ed.), Reasoned argument and social change. Selected papers from the seventeenth biennial conference on argumentation sponsored by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic Association (pp. 25–47). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.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