The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics

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


Apart from a shared interest in the study of argumentation, in their academic work students of argumentation with a rhetorical outlook and students of argumentation with a dialectical outlook have not much in common. Although Aristotle, who may be regarded as the intellectual father of both rhetoric and dialectic as a fully-fledged academic discipline, considered rhetoric to be the ‘counterpart’ (antistrophos) of dialectic, so that the distinction reflects primarily a division of labour among students of argumentation, the two intellectual enterprises have over time and by irregular stages grown apart.


Critical Discussion Resolution Process Argumentative Discourse Strategic Manoeuvring Argumentative Move 
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. Albert, H. (1967/1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Dascal, M., & Gross, A. G. (1999). The marriage between pragmatics and rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 32, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hamblin, C.L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jacobs, S. (2002). Messages, functional contexts, and categories of fallacy. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 119–130). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kienpointner, M. (1995). Rhetoric. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 453–461). John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Popper, K.R. (1963/1974). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (5th ed.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  9. Simons, H. W. (1990). The rhetoric of inquiry as an intellectual movement. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 1–31). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F. H. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Text, 10, 37–44.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F.H. & Houtlosser, P. (1998). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In J.F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a time of change: Definitions, frameworks, and critiques. Proceedings of the tenth NCA/AFA conference on argumentation. Alta, Utah, August 1997 (pp. 51–56). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002a). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002b). 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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniv of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations