Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues

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


In this article it is pointed out what kind of rules for communication and argumentation are required in order to make it possible to resolve disputes in an orderly way. In Sect. 16.2, Gricean maxims and Searlean speech act conditions are integrated in such a way that five general rules for communication can be formulated. In Sect. 16.3, starting from Lewis’s definition of convention, it is argued that the interactional effect of accepting is conventionally linked with the complex communicative act complex of argumentation. In Sect. 16.4, the rules for argumentation are placed in a dialogical perspective.


Argumentation Conversational maxim Dialogue Discussion Rules for argumentation Rules for communication Speech act condition 


  1. Barth, E. M. (1972). Evaluaties. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue., Foundations of communication series Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, T. (1973). Illocutions and perlocutions. Foundations of Language, 9, 492–503.Google Scholar
  4. Cox, R. J., & Willard, C. A. (1982). (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1981). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion: A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 77–90.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In Cox & Willard (Eds.), pp. 205–237.Google Scholar
  9. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics, Cambridge textbooks in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. K. (1977). Convention. A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, (1st ed. 1969).Google Scholar
  11. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Searle, J. R. (1980). An interview (with John Searle). In J. Boyd & A. Ferrara (Eds.), pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. (1984). Minds, brains, and science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions, PDA 1. Dordrecht, Cinnaminson: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H & Grootendorst, R. (1992), Argumentation, communication and fallacies.Google Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (to be published), Reconstructing conversational argument.Google Scholar
  19. Wunderlich, D. (1982). Zur Konventionalität von Sprechhandlungen. In D. Wunderlich (Ed.), Linguistische pragmatik (pp. 11–58). Frankfurt am Main: Atheneum.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
  2. 2.Instituut voor NeerlandistiekUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations