Advertisement

The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation Under Discussion

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

Abstract

When Rob Grootendorst and I started studying argumentation in the early 1970s, we were in the first place interested in developing methods for enhancing the quality of argumentative practices: the ways in which people in argumentative reality justify their views in communication with others and respond to the justifications of views given by others.

Keywords

Critical Discussion Argument Scheme Argumentation Theory 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.

References

  1. Andone, C. (2012). Bermejo-Luque, L. Giving reasons. a linguistic-pragmatic approach to Argumentation. Argumentation, 26(2), 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bermejo-Luque, L. (2011). Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer Academic.Google 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. Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006). Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments: Rivals or partners? In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 1–10). Mahwah, NJ-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 11–22). Mahwah, N.J.-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Bonevac, D. (2003). Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation, 17(4), 451–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botting, D. (2010). A pragma-dialectical default on the question of truth. Informal Logic, 30(4). 413–434.Google Scholar
  8. Botting, D. (2012). Pragma-dialectics epistemologized. A reply. Informal Logic, 32(2), 266–282.Google Scholar
  9. Cummings, L. (2005). Pragmatics. A multidisciplinary perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Finocchiaro, M. (2006). Reflections on the hyper dialectical definition of argument. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 51–62). Mahwah, N.J.-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Frank, D. A. (2004). Argumentation studies in the wake of The New Rhetoric. Argumentation and Advocacy, 40(Spring), 267–283.Google Scholar
  12. Garssen, B. (2009). Book review of Dialog theory for critical argumentation by Douglas N. Walton (2007). Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 186–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garssen, B., & van Laar, J. A. (2010). A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges. Informal Logic, 30(2), 122–141.Google Scholar
  14. Garver, E. (2000). Comments on rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber, M. (2011). Pragmatism, pragma-dialectics, and methodology: Toward a more ethical notion of argument criticism. Speaker and Gavel, 48(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert, M. A. (1997). Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Gilbert, M. A. (2001). Ideal argumentation. A paper presented at the 4th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. Winsor, ON: OSSA.Google Scholar
  18. Gilbert, M. A. (2005). Let’s talk: Emotion and the pragma-dialectical model. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 43–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, J. (1999). Good argument without resolution. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 255–259). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  20. Groarke, L. (1995). What pragma-dialectics can learn from deductivism, and what deductivism can learn from pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21-24, 1994), Volume II. (pp. 138–145). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  21. Grootendorst, R. (1987). Some fallacies about fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline (pp. 331–342). Dordrecht-Providence: Foris.Google Scholar
  22. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  23. Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 439–477). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Hample, D. (2007). The arguers. Informal Logic, 27(2), 163–178.Google Scholar
  25. Hansen, H. (2003). Theories of presumption and burden of proof. In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor 2003 (CD ROM).Google Scholar
  26. Hohmann, H. (2002). Rhetoric and dialectic. Some historical and legal perspectives. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 41–52). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Houtlosser, P. (2003). Commentary on H. V. Hansen’s ‘Theories of presumption and burden of proof’. In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), Windsor 2003 (CD ROM).Google Scholar
  28. Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Kauffeld, F. (2006). Pragma-dialectic’s appropriation of speech act theory. In P. Houtlosser, & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 149–160). Mahwah, N.J.-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  30. Kock, C. (2003). Multidimensionality and non-deductiveness in deliberative argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 157–171). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  31. Kock, C. (2007). The domain of rhetorical argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth conference of the International Society of the Study of Argumentation (pp. 785–788). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  32. Lumer, C. (2010). Pragma-dialectics and the function of argumentation. Argumentation, 24(1), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lumer, C. (2012). The epistemic inferiority of pragma-dialectics. Informal Logic, 32(1), 51–82.Google Scholar
  34. Rees, M. A. (2001). Review of Manfest Rationality. Argumentation, 15(2), 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Siegel, H., & Biro, J. (2010). The pragma-dialectician’s dilemma: Reply to Garssen and van Laar. Informal Logic, 30(4), 457–480.Google Scholar
  36. Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H. (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Text: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 10(1/2), 37–44.Google Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F. H. (2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia, 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F. H. (Ed.). (2009). Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie. [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., with Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, Ch., Walton, D. N., Willard, Ch.A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mawhah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). A pragmatic view of the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 123–132). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. van Rees, M. A. (2003). Within pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac. Argentation, 17(4), 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walton, D. N. (1991a). Begging the question: Circular reasoning as a tactic of argumentation. New York: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  58. Walton, D. N. (1991b). Hamblin and the standard treatment of fallacies. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 24, 353–361.Google Scholar
  59. Walton, D. N. (1992). Plausible argument in everyday conversation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  60. Walton, D. N. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wohlrapp, H. (2009). Der Begriff des Arguments. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Wissen, Forschen, Glauben, Subjektivität and Vernunft. 2n ed. supplemented with a subject index. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
  62. Woods, J. (1991). Pragma-dialectics: A radical departure in fallacy theory. Communication and Cognition, 24(1), 43–54.Google Scholar
  63. Woods, J. (2004). The death of argument. Fallacies in agent-based reasoning. Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  64. Woods, J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics: A retrospective. In P. Houtlosser, & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60 th birthday (pp. 301–311). Mahwah, N.J.-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  65. Woods, J., & Walton, D. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Foris. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  66. Wreen, M. J. (1994). Look, Ma! No Frans! Pragmatics & Cognition, 2(2), 285–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zenker, F (2007a). Changes in conduct-rules and ten commandments: Pragma-dialectics 1984 vs. 2004. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & B. Garssen (Eds.), In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1581–1489). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  68. Zenker, F. (2007b). Pragma-dialectic’s necessary conditions for a critical discussion. In J. A. Blair, H. Hansen, R. Johnson, & C. Tindale (Eds.), In Proceedings of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor: OSSA. (CD ROM).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