Advertisement

In Context Giving Contextualization Its Rightful Place in the Study of Argumentation

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

Abstract

The need for argumentation, the requirements of argumentation, and the structure of argumentation are all adapted to a context in which doubts, opposition, objections, and counterclaims arise. In argumentative practice there are a great many of such contexts. In some of them argumentation is put forward to support a descriptive standpoint, in other contexts it may support an evaluative or a prescriptive standpoint. Some argumentation theorists concentrate in the first place, or even exclusively, on argumentation put forward in defence of descriptive claims about factual states of affairs, other argumentation theorists tend to focus on argumentation relating to evaluative judgments of the ethical quality of a disputed way of life or the esthetic quality of a work of art, and still others deal almost exclusively with argumentation in favour of prescriptive incitements to carry out some particular action or to refrain from doing so.

Keywords

Argumentation Theorist Speech Event Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering Reconstructive Analysis 
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.

References

  1. Andone, C. (2009a). Accusing someone of an inconsistency as a confrontational way of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 153–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  2. Andone, C. (2009b). Confrontational strategic maneuvers in a political interview. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Auer, J. J. (1962). The counterfeit debates. In S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 142–150). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1992). Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 85–103). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  5. de Groot, A. D. (1969). Methodology: Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  6. de Groot, A. D. (1984). The theory of science forum: Subject and purport. Methodology and Science, 17(4), 230–259.Google Scholar
  7. Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2007). The contextuality of fallacies. Informal Logic, 27(1), 59–67.Google Scholar
  8. Feteris, E. T. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hymes, D. (1972). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  11. Jacobs, S. (2002). Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy: Some dialectical and rhetorical considerations. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14(3), 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Martel, M. (1983). Political campaign debates: Images, strategies, tactics. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Mohammed, D. (2009). The honourable gentleman should make up his mind. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s question time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  19. Perlof, M. R. (1998). Political communication, politics, press and public in America. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Ross, W. H., & Conlon, D. E. (2000). Hybrid forms of third-party dispute resolution: Theoretical implications of combining mediation and arbitration. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 416–427.Google Scholar
  21. Tonnard, Y. (2009). Shifting the topic in Dutch Parliament. How presentational choices can be instrumental in strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategicmaneuvering (pp. 221–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  22. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, H. L. M. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  25. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992b). Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6(2), 141–159.Google Scholar
  27. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 168–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie. A dialectical perspective. In T. Suzuki, Y. Yano & T. Kato (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Tokyo Conference on Argumentation (pp. 37–40). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.Google Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren., J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 289–292). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  33. Wagemans, J. (2003). Conceptualizing fallacies: The informal logic and pragma-dialectical approaches to the argumentum ad ignorantiam. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1049–1051). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  34. Walton, D. N. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 134–147). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  35. Walton, D. N. (1998a). Ad hominem arguments. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  36. Walton, D. N. (1998b). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  37. Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13(4), 367–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  39. Walton, D. N., & Macagno, F. (2007). The fallaciousness of threats: Character and ad baculum. Argumentation, 21(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Willard, C. A. (1995). Liberal alarms and rhetorical excursions. A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse of politics in action. Politics as usual. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Woods, J. (1992). Who cares about the fallacies? In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 22–48). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  43. Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: de Gruyter.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