Skip to main content
Log in

Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussion

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, after arguing that present approaches to improving problem-solving discussions for various reasons are not satisfactory, I turn to the pragma-dialectic approach to argumentative discourse to derive a normative framework that can serve as a point of departure to enhance the quality of problem-solving discussions. I then show how this approach can be used as analytical and evaluative instrument that can help the analyst to establish whether participants in actual practice act in a fashion that is in accord with the norms posited. Two real-life problem-solving discussions provide the material for this demonstration.

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

Access this article

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

  • Bales, R. F.: 1950, Interaction Process Analysis: A Method for the Study of Small Groups, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bublitz, W.: 1988, Supportive Fellow-Speakers and Cooperative Conversations. Discourse Topics and Ttopical Actions, Participant Roles and Recipient Action in a Particular Type of Everyday Conversation, Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheepen, C.: 1988, The Predictability of Informal Conversation, Pinter, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J.: 1910, How We Think, D.C. Heath, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, De Gruyter/Foris, Berlin etc.

    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. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1993, Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa etc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. A.: 1970, ‘Decision Emergence: Phases in Group Decision-making’, Speech Monographs 37, 53–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B. A.: 1980, Small Group Decision Making: Communication and the Group Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, L. R.: 1996, ‘Remembering and “Re-membering': A History of Theory and Research on Communication and Group Decision Making’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making (2nd edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 19–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouran, D. S.: 1988, ‘Group Decision Making: An Approach to Integrative Research’, in C. H. Tardy (ed.), A Handbook for the Study of Human Communication, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 247–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gouran, D. S. et al.: 1978, ‘Behavioral Correlates of Perceptions of Quality in Decisionmaking Discussions’, Communication Monographs 45, 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1975, ‘Logic and Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, III: Speech Acts, Academic Press, New York, 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirokawa, R. Y. et al.: 1996, ‘Communication and Group Decision-making Effectiveness’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision Making (2nd edition), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 269–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. P.: 1984, Rhetoric of Everyday English Texts, Allen & Unwin, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, A.: 1984, ‘Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes’, in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 57–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S.: 1981, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups I: A Comparison of Two Models’, Communication Monographs 48, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S.: 1983, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups III: A Multiple Sequence Theory of Decision Development’, Communication Monographs 50, 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M. S. and J. Roth: 1989, ‘Decision Development in Small Groups IV: A Typology of Group Decision Paths’, Human Communication Research 15, 323–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacks, H., E. A. Schegloff and G. Jefferson: 1974, ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation’, Language 50(4), 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schegloff, E. A.: 1982, ‘Discourse as an Interactional Achievement: Some Uses of ‘uh huh’ and Other Things that Come Between Sentences’, in D. Tannen (ed.), Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, 71–93.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Rees, M.A. Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Problem-Solving Discussion. Argumentation 17, 465–479 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026364503176

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026364503176

Navigation