Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse with the Help of Speech Act Conditions

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


In order to be able to develop adequate tools for analysing argumentative discourse, a consistent and coherent research programme is needed which encompasses five components. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory an approach to the analysis of argumentation is proposed in which these five components are incorporated. In this article we shall explain this approach with regard to the reconstruction of argumentative discourse.


Argument Scheme Preparatory Condition Argumentative Discourse Strategic Manoeuvring Felicity 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.


  1. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse. A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 43–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1982). Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & Ch A Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205–237). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1983). Speech acts structure in conversation. Rational aspects of pragmatic coherence. In R. T. Craig & K. Tracy (Eds.), Conversational coherence: Form, structure, and strategy (pp. 47–66). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Searle, J. R. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices. Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation (pp. 9–24). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1982). Unexpressed premisses: Part I. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 97–106.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1983). Unexpressed premisses: Part II. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 215–225.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1987). Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1(3), 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1989). Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 3(4), 367–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Poppel, L. (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.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