Dialectical Profiles and Indicators of Argumentative Moves

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


The study of argumentation is prospering. After its brilliant start in Antiquity, highlighted in the classical works of Aristotle, after an alternation of ups and downs during the following millennia, in the post-Renaissance period its gradual decline set in. Revitalization took place only after Toulmin and Perelman published in the same year (1958) their landmark works The Uses of Argument and La nouvelle rhétorique (co-authored by Olbrechts-Tyteca and translated into English in 1969). The model of argumentation presented by Toulmin and Perelman’s inventory of argumentation techniques inspired a great many scholars in various ways to take up the study of argumentation in a serious manner. Nowadays there are well-established (formal as well as informal) logical approaches to argumentation, but also social and socio-psychological, linguistic, juridical and other approaches. In most of these approaches traces can be found of the influence of the classical and neo-classical argumentation theories just mentioned.


Critical Discussion Argumentation Structure Rhetorical Question Argumentative Discourse Strategic Manoeuvring 
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.



This article was written as part of the project “Argumentative indicators in Dutch” subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research NWO (project no. 200-41-012). We would like to thank Agnès van Rees and Erik C.W. Krabbe, as well as the participants in the Wake Forest/ISSA Conference held in Venice, June 2004, for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.

We would like to thank Erik C.W. Krabbe and Assimakis Tseronis, as well as the referees of the Journal of Pragmatics, for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.


  1. Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ducrot, O., et al. (1980). Les mots du discourse. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  5. Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the ways of words. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  8. Heritage, J. (1984). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 299–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Houtlosser, P. (1994). The speech act ‘advancing a standpoint’. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 165–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  10. Houtlosser, P. (1995). Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dialectisch perspectief op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten [Standpoints in a critical discussion. A pragma-dialectical perspective on the identification and reconstruction of standpoints]. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
  11. Houtlosser, P. (1997). Indicatoren van protagonisme [Indicators of protagonism]. Taalbeheersing, 19, 196–206.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Jackson, S. (1992). ‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, J. A., & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in natural conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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 (pp. 205–237). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krabbe, E. C. W. (1992). So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuasion dialogues. Argumentation, 6, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krabbe, E. C. W. (1999). Profiles of dialogue. In J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke & Y. Venema (Eds.), JFAK. Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday, III (pp. 25–36). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2003). Metadialogues. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoek Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 83–90). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  21. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  23. Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The dialectics of logic. Logique et Analyse, 24, 159–177.Google Scholar
  24. Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics [English translation of Om meningsytring. En del elementaere logiske emner. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1947]. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  25. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  26. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation [English translation of Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L., 1958]. Notre Dame-London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  27. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  28. Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  29. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Slot, P. (1993). “How can you say that?” Rhetorical questions in argumentative texts. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
  32. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1992). Analysing complex argumentation. The reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  33. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1995). But as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions. Leuvense Bijdragen, 84, 281–294.Google Scholar
  34. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2001). Argumentation, explanation, and causality: An exploration of current linguistic approaches to textual relations. In T. Sanders, W. Spooren, & J. Schilperoord (Eds.), Text representation. Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 231–246). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2003a). Indicatoren van vergelijkingsargumentatie [Indicators of arguments from analogy]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 25, 142–157.Google Scholar
  36. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2003b). Indicators of complex argumentation. In H. V. Hansen, C. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications. Informal logic @ 25. CD-Rom. ISBN 0-9683461-2-X-3-8.Google Scholar
  37. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6, 1–16.Google Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2002). Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam-Newport News, VA: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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-Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992b). Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation, 6, 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A pragma-dialectical procedure for a critical discussion. Argumentation, 17(4), 365–386.Google Scholar
  44. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa-London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, C., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: a delicate balance. In F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2000). Indicatoren van dialectische geschilprofielen [Indicators of dialectical profiles of types of disputes]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 22, 112–125.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2005). Argumentatieve indicatoren in het Nederlands. Een pragma-dialectische studie [Argumentative indicators in Dutch. A pragma-dialectical study]. Amsterdam: Rozenberg.Google Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F. H., & Kruiger, T. (1985). Het identificeren van argumentatieschema’s [Identifying argument schemes]. In W. K. B. Koning (Ed.), Taalbeheersing in theorie en praktijk (pp. 55–66). Dordrecht-Cinnaminson: Foris.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D. N. (1989). Question-reply argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D. N. (1999). Profiles of dialogue for evaluating arguments from ignorance. Argumentation, 13, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter Houtlosser
    • 1
  • A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations