Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reconstructing Interactive Argumentative Discourse

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

When analysing and evaluating discourse, the discourse itself, the speech event and the activity type it represents, forces the analyst to search for a theoretical and methodological framework which is suitable for analysing the activity exposed in the data. Interactive political argumentation demands both a theory of argumentation and a theory of spoken language to fully grasp what is going on in the discourse. The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory offers both analytical and evaluative tools, but rests upon a reconstruction of the argumentative discourse which is hierarchical and static. If applied to interactive argumentation this kind of reconstruction will not reveal interactive aspects of the parties' argumentation. On the other hand, conversation analysis, which concentrates on interactive aspects of the discourse, does not offer a tool for the evaluation of the quality of each party's argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrect/Cinnaminson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jacobs and S. Jackson: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, Alabama University Press, Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Käsermann, M. L. and A. Altorfer: 1989, ‘Obstruction in Conversation: A Triadic Case Study’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 8(1), 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linell, P. and L. Gustavsson: 1987, Initiativ och Respons. Om Dialogens Dynamik, Dominans och Koherens, University of Linköping, Tema Kommunikation, SIC 15.

  • Linell, P.: 1990, ‘The Power of Dialogue Dynamics’, in I. Markovà and K. Foppa (eds.), The Dynamics of Dialogue, Harvester Wheatsheaf, Great Britain, pp. 147–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson: 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organisation of Turn-taking in Conversations’, Language 50(4), 596–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandvik, M.: (forthc.), Is there a Winner and a Loser in Argumentative Debates? Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oslo, Section for Scandinavian Languages and Literature, Norway.

  • Van Rees, A.: 1994, ‘Analysing and Evaluating Problem-solving Discussions’, in F. H. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst (eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic Sat., Amsterdam, pp. 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D.: 1992, ‘Which of the Fallacies are Fallacies of Relevance?’ Argumentation 6(2)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Early Childhood Education, Oslo College, Pilestredet 52, 0167, Oslo, Norway

    Margareth Sandvik

Authors
  1. Margareth Sandvik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandvik, M. Reconstructing Interactive Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation 11, 419–434 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007799305146

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007799305146

Search

Navigation