A Pragmatic View of the Burden of Proof

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


In an earlier paper, entitled ‘Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof,’ we have explained our dialectical perspective on the division of the burden of proof in a critical discussion (van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Newport News/Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam, pp. 13–28, 2002).


Critical Discussion Interactional Situation Argumentative Discourse Pragmatic Rationale Interaction Principle 
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. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  2. Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 169–184). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  3. Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  4. Kauffeld, F. (2002). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  5. Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controvery-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: Suny Press.Google Scholar
  6. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1983). On presumption. Journal of Philosophy, 80, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 201–215). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at Issue Selected Papers of the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp, August 17–22, 1987 (Vol. I, pp. 151–170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2003). “I don’t have anything to prove here”: Judgements of the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof (this volume).Google Scholar
  12. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.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