Abstract
In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed that identifying and acknowledging fallacies in ordinary discussions always has a conditional character. Differences between the pragma-dialectical perspective, the Standard Treatment, and the formal logic approach to fallacy analysis are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue. A Philosophical Study of Logic and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
Barth, E. M. and J. L. Martens: 1977, ‘Argumentum ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectic. The Method of Dialogue-Tableaus as a Tool in the Theory of Fallacy’, Logique etAnalyse, Nouvelle Série. Vol. 20, No. 77–78, pp. 76–96.
Crawshay-Williams, R.: 1957, Methods and Criteria of Reasoning. An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Eemeren, Frans H. van: 1986a, ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse’, Text, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Eemeren, Frans H. van: 1986b, ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Papers contributed to the First International Conference on Argumentation of the University of Amsterdam, June 3–6, 1986. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, PDA 3.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussion Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson, PDA 1.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst: 1987, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Pragma-Linguistic Argumentation Analysis in Dialectical Perspective, to be published.
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1987, Handbook of Argumentation Theory. A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, PDA 7.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Tjark Kruiger: 1986, ‘Identifying Argumentation Schemes”, in Blair et al. (eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, PDA 3A.
Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 43–58.
Grootendorst, Rob: 1986, ‘Some Fallacies about Fallacies’, in van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, PDA 3.
Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson: 1982, ‘Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in J. Robert Cox and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Practice, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale/Edwardsville, pp. 205–237.
Jacobs, Scott and Sally Jackson: 1983, ‘Speech Act Structure in Conversation. Rational Aspects of Pragmatic Coherence’, in Robert T. Craig and Karen Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 47–66.
Naess, Arne: 1966, Communication and Argument. Elements of Applied Semantics, George Allen & Unwin, London, trans. of: En del elementaere logiske emner.
Searle, J. R.: 1970, Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1st ed. 1969).
Walton, Douglas N.: 1984, Logical Dialogue-Games and Fallacies. University Press of America, Lanham.
Walton, Douglas N.: 1985, Arguer's Position. A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation, and Fallacy, Greenwood Press, Westport. Contributions in Philosophy, Number 26.
Woods, John and Douglas Walton: 1982, Argument: The Logic of the Fallacies, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
Woods, John and Douglas Walton: 1987, Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1982, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, PDA 5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1, 283–301 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136779