For Reason’s Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse

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


Everybody knows the kind of argumentation of the ‘Look out! Do you want to get run over?’-type. In these argumentations a standpoint, which is not always presented as one, is defended by an argumentation, which may pose as a question, often called ‘rhetorical’, or which otherwise does not show itself directly as an argumentation.


Critical Discussion Correctness Condition Speech Event Rhetorical Question 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.


  1. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H. (1979). Responding to indirect speech acts. Cognitive Psychology, 11, 430–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Edmondson, Willis. (1981). Spoken discourse. A model for analysis. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 205–237.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Speech act structure in conversation. Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In: R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. O’Keefe, D. J. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In: J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  10. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. 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-Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986a). The normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. In: T. Ensink, A. van Essen & T. van der Geest (Eds.), Discourse analysis and public life. Dordrecht-Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986b). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Pragma-linguistic argumentation analysis in dialectical perspective. Dordrecht-Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H., & Kruiger, T. (1986), Identifying argumentation schemes. In: F.H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Dordrecht-Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984). The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1987), Empirical research on the identification of argumentation. To be published.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations