Making the Best of Argumentative Discourse

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


Pragma-dialectical analysis aims at a rational reconstruction of the ‘deep structure’ of argumentative discourse by revealing those aspects of the discourse that are relevant to the resolution of a difference of opinion. For this endeavour a methodical integration of normative and descriptive insights is required that enables the analyst to interpret the empirical data adequately in the light of the chosen perspective. In this paper, we shall discuss some of the theoretical starting-points of pragma-dialectical analysis as a systematic enterprise of normative reconstruction.


Critical Discussion Language User Preparatory Condition Speech Event 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. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, D. D. (1977). Rules and sequences in conversation. In P. Collett (Ed.), Social rules and social behaviour. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, D. D. (1983). Language and action: A structural model of behaviour. Oxford: Pergamom.Google Scholar
  4. Duncan, S., & Fiske, D. (1977). Face-to-face interaction: Research, methods and theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Edmondson, W. (1981). Spoken discourse. A model for analysis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntaxt and semantics Vol. 3: Speech acts. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kreckel, M. (1981). Shared knowledge and communicative acts in natural discourse. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  8. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behavior. Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  10. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Taylor, T. J., & Cameron, Deborah. (1987). Analysing conversation. Rules and units in the structure of talk. Pergamom: Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F. H. (1987). ‘For reason’s sake: Maximal argumentative analysis of discourse. In: van Eemeren F. H. et al. (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 201–215), Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2(2), 271–291.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1990a). Analyzing argumentative discourse’. In: R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation (, pp. 86–106), Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1990b). The relevance problem in the analysis of argumentative texts: A pragma-dialectical reconstruction. Hermes, 5, 57–68.Google Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. Jackson, S., & Scott Jacobs, C. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Alabama: University of Alabama 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