Advertisement

From Ideal Model of Critical Discussion to Situated Argumentative Discourse: The Step-by-Step Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation

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

Abstract

I started developing the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, together with Rob Grootendorst, at the University of Amsterdam in the 1970s. Our primary interest was to provide adequate tools for enhancing the quality of the way in which people justify their views and analyse and critically review the justifications of views they encounter in communicating with others. Because of the importance of such justifications for what people believe, associate themselves with and do, we considered argumentation of great intellectual, social and practical significance. A systematic reflection on the tools enabling an adequate production, analysis and evaluation of argumentation seemed therefore crucial to us.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argumentation Structure Argument Scheme Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering 
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. Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft [Treatise on critical reason] (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  2. Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
  5. 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.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  9. Ihnen Jory, C. (2010). The analysis of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: Second reading of the terrorism bill in the British House of Commons. Controversia, 7(1), 91–107.Google Scholar
  10. Ihnen Jory, C. (2012). Analysing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in lawmaking debates: Institutional constraints on pragmatic argumentation in the British parliament. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Labrie, N. (2012). Strategic maneuvering in treatment decision-making discussions. Two cases in point. Argumentation, 26(2), 171–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority. An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Plug, H. J. (2010). Ad-hominem arguments in Dutch and European parliamentary debates: Strategic manoeuvring in an institutional context. In C. Ilie (Ed.), Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates (pp. 305–328). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  16. Plug, H. J. (2011). Parrying ad-hominem arguments in parliamentary debates. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden and G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ch. 138, pp. 1570–1578). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-rom.Google Scholar
  17. Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. An evolutionary approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  18. Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  19. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  22. Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Shared medical decision-making: Strategic maneuvering by doctors in the presentation of their treatment preferences to patients. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ch. 162, pp. 1811–1818). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. CD-rom.Google Scholar
  23. Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Tonnard, Y.M. (2011). Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  25. Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958.).Google Scholar
  26. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. van Eemeren, F. H. (2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia, 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  29. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). Pragmatic argumentation in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In F. H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, A. Rocci & D. Walton (Eds.), Practical argumentation. To be published by John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia—United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2011). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. 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.Google Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012a). Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012b). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking and Reasoning, 18(3), 344–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1990). Analyzing argumentative discourse. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 86–106). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  44. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
  45. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1981). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory] (2nd ed.). Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
  46. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1983). Het analyseren van een betoog. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984a). Argumenteren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984b). The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1986a). Argumentatietheorie (3rd ed.). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1986b). Drogredenen. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
  51. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  52. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1984c). Het identificeren van enkelvoudige argumentatie [Identifying single argumentation]. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 6(4), 297–310.Google Scholar
  53. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 239–245.Google Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge/Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). 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
  56. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2007). Seizing the occasion. Parameters for analysing ways of strategic manoeuvring. In: F. H. van Eemeren., J. A. Blair., C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 375–380). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  57. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 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. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  60. Wagemans, J. H. M. (2011). The assessment of argumentation from expert opinion. Argumentation, 25(3), 329–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  62. Wierda, R. (2015). Strategic maneuvering with authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. An analytical and experimental study into authority argumentation relying on experience expertise. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 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