Advertisement

The Speech Acts of Arguing and Convincing in Externalized Discussions

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

Abstract

In discussions directed towards solving a conflict of opinion the participants try to convince one another of the acceptability or unacceptability of the opinion that is under discussion. If the participants are co-operative, this means that they are prepared to externalize their position with regard to the opinion and to advance argumentation for or against it. In this article, which is a condensed translation of an article originally published in Dutch (van Eemeren and Grootendorst in Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 2:271–310, 1980), the authors try to indicate, by reference to the speech act theory, what this entails. In the way in which it was originally conceived, the speech act theory is inadequate to characterize argumentation. In the authors’ view this objection can be met by regarding argumentation as an illocutionary act complex at a textual level. They formulate the conditions obtaining for a happy performance of this act complex and explain that for the speaker the performance is linked by convention to the perlocutionary act of convincing. In the case of an externalized discussion this means that with his argumentation the speaker tries to make the listener, in turn, perform an illocutionary act in which he expresses his acceptance of non-acceptance of the opinion.

Keywords

Sincerity Condition Language User Argumentation Theory Sentence Level Preparatory Condition 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Else Barth, Dorothea Franck, Hartmut Haberland, Herman Parret and Daniel Vanderveken for their useful comments.

References

  1. Austin, J. L. (1976). How to do things with words. (2nd ed.). In J. O Urmson & M. Sbisà (Eds.) London: Oxford University Press. (1st ed. 1962).Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E. M. (1972). Evaluaties. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. G. W. (1978). Formele3 dialectiek: Instrumenten ter beslechting van conflicten over geuite meningen. Spektator, 7, 307–341.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions and perlocutions. Foundations of Language, 9, 492–503.Google Scholar
  5. Fogelin, R. J. (1978). Understanding argument. An introduction to informal logic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  6. Franck, D. (1980). Seven sins of pragmatics: theses about speech act theory, conversational analysis, linguistics and rhetorics. In A. Foolen, J. Hardeveld & D. Springorum (Eds.), Conversatie-analyse (pp. 182–192). Groningen: Xeno.Google Scholar
  7. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gumpertz, J. J. (1972). Introduction. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hyraes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics. The ethnography of communication (pp. 1–25). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  9. Habermas, J (1973). Wahrheitstheorie. In H. Fahrenbach (Ed.), Wirklichkeit und Reflexion. Walter Schulz zum 60. Geburtstag (pp. 211–265). Pfullingen: Giinther Neske.Google Scholar
  10. Harder, P., & Kock, C. (1976). The theory of presupposition failure. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  11. Holdcroft, D. (1978). Words and deeds. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  12. Hymes, D. (1962). The ethnography of speaking. In T. Gladwin & W. Sturtevant (Eds.), Anthropology and human behavior (pp. 13–53). Washington: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  13. Hymes, D. (1967). Models of the interaction of language and social setting. Journal of Social Issues, 23(2), 8–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kopperschmidt, J. (1980). Argumentation. Sprache und Vernunft 2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (Urban-Taschenbücher).Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, D. K. (1977). Convention. A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (1st ed. 1969).Google Scholar
  16. Morgan, J. L. (1978). Two types of convention in indirect speech acts. In P. Cole (Ed.), Syntax and semantics vol. 9 Pragmatics (pp. 261–280). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. Translated from the Norwegian. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget/Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Öhlschläger, G. (1979). Linguistische Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der Argumentation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Clarendon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Quasthoff, U. (1978). The uses of stereotype in everyday argument. Journal of Pragmatics, 2, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sadock, J. (1974). Toward a linguistic theory of speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy, of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, (1st ed. 1969).Google Scholar
  23. Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in society, 5(01), 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, J. R. (1979a). Indirect speech acts. In J. R. Searle (Ed.), Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts (pp. 30–57). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Searle, J. R. (1979b). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In J. R. Searle (Ed.) Expression and meaning (1–29).Google Scholar
  26. Searle, J. R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).Google Scholar
  28. van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Taal en handelen. Een interdisciplinaire inleiding in de pragmatiek. Coutinho: Muiderberg.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1980). Argumenteren en overtuigen: een conventioneel paar. Een karakterisering van argumentatie met behulp van de taalhandelingstheorie. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 2, 271–310.Google Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger T. (1978). Utrecht: Het spectrum (Aula 613). (2nd ed. 1981. English ed. Handbook of Argumentation Theory. (1987). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris).Google Scholar
  31. Wunderlich, D. (1972). Zur Konventionalität von Sprechhandlungen. In D. Wunderlich (Ed.), Linguistische pragmatik (pp. 11–58). Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations