Advertisement

The Case of Pragma-Dialectics

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

Abstract

In the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation the term argumentation is used to refer to a process (“I am still in the middle of my argumentation”) as well as to its result (“Lets examine what her argumentation amounts to”). Characteristically, argumentation is then studied from a communicative perspective. This communication, which can be oral or written, will generally take place by verbal means, but non-verbal elements (such as gestures and images) may also play a part. In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is viewed as aimed at resolving a difference of opinion by critically testing the acceptability of the standpoints at issue. Thus perceived, the study of argumentation does not only have a descriptive dimension that pertains to the way in which argumentation is conducted in communicative practice but also a normative dimension pertaining to the norms of reasonableness that are employed when argumentation is judged for its quality and possible flaws are detected.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argument Scheme Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering 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.

References

  1. Albert, H. Traktat über kritische Vernunft. Mohr, (3rd ed.). 1975. (Ist Edition 1967).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. 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. Crawshay-Williams, R. (1957). Methods and criteria of reasoning: an inquiry into the structure of controversy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Habermas, J. (1971). Vorbereitende bemerkungen zu einer theorie der kommunikativen kompetenz. In J. Habermas & H. Luhmann (Eds.), Theorie der Gesellschaft oder Sozialtechnologie (pp. 107–141), Was leistet die Systemforschung? Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  8. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen, (Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press).Google Scholar
  9. 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 (pp. 299–346)., Studies in Conversation Analysis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Jackson, S. (1992). “Virtual standpoints” and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In: Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  12. Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, volume II, pp. 260–269. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50, 285–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson, R. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Towards a cognitive science of language, Inference, and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle 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. Naess, A. (1996). Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics. Allen & Unwin, London, 1966. (English translation of Om meningsytring. En del elementaere logiske emner, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1947).Google Scholar
  24. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  25. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics. (pp. 65–82). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  26. Popper, K. R. (1971). The open society and its enemies (5th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 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. 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
  32. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F. H. (2001). Fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. (pp. 135–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2002). Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News, VA: Sic Sat, Vale Press.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H. & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: 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 Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels B. (2002). The unreasonableness of the ad baculum fallacy. In Th. Goodnight, (Ed.), Arguing communication and culture. Selected Papers from the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, pp. 343–350. National Communication Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 271–291, 1988. (Also published in 14, 11–28).Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988b). Rules for argumentation in dialogues. Argumentation, 2, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (Eds.). (1994). Studies in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.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. R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25:239–245, 1989. (Also included in (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1994), pp. 119–129).Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation: analysis, evaluation, presentation. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1997). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In J.F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a time of change: definitions, frameworks, and critiques, pp. 51–56. National Communication Association, Annandale, VA. Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Alta, Utah.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000a). Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis within a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocay, 37, 150–157.Google Scholar
  51. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000b). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.). (2002). Dialectic and rhetoric: the warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. van Eemeren, F. H., & Meuffels, B. (2002). Ordinary arguers’ judgements on ad hominem fallacies. In van Eemeren (2002), pp. 45–64.Google Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19, 416–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. Wenzel, J. W. (1979). Jürgen habermas and the dialectical perspective on argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 83–94.Google Scholar
  57. Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  58. Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  59. Willard, C. A. (1995). Liberal alarms and rhetorical excursions, A new rhetoric for modern democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago 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