Skip to main content
Log in

The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the development of pragma-dialectics as a theory of argumentative discourse. First the development of the pragma-dialectical model of a critical discussion is explained, with the rules that are to be complied with in order to avoid fallacies from occurring. Then the integration is discussed of rhetorical insight in the dialectical framework. In this endeavour, the concept of strategic manoeuvring is explained that allows for a more refined and more profoundly justified analysis of argumentative discourse and a better identification of fallacies. The paper ends with a brief overview of current research projects.

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

  • Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biro, J. and H. Siegel: 1992, ‘Normativity, Argumentation and an Epistemic Theory of Fallacies’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, Sic Sat, 1, Amsterdam, 85–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van (ed.): 2001, Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van (ed.): 2001, Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam/Newport News, VA.

    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, Foris/Mouton de Gruyter, Dordrecht/Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1988a, ‘Rationale for a Pragma-dialectical Perspective’, Argumentation 2, 271–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1988a, ‘Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues’, Argumentation 2, 499–510.

    Article  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 and R. Grootendorst: 2003, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst (eds.): 1994, Studies in Pragma-Dialectics, Sic Sat, 4, Amsterdam.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs: 1997, ‘Argumentation’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Volume I, Sage, London, 208–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson, E. C. W. Krabbe, Chr. Plantin, D. N. Walton, C. A. Willard, J. Woods and D. Zarefsky: 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans: 2002, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1998, ‘Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-dialectical Reconstructions’, in J. F. Klumpp (ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques. Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Alta, Utah, August, 1997, National Communication Association, Annandale, VA, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1999, ‘Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse’, Discourse Studies 1, 479–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2000a, ‘Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-dialectical Framework’, Argumentation 14, 293–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2000b, ‘Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis within a Dialectical Framework’, Argumentation and Advocay 37, 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2002, ‘Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance’, in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 131–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‘The Rhetoric of William the Silent's Apologie: A Dialectical Perspective’, in L. Komlósi, P. Houtlosser and M. Leezenberg (eds.), Communication and Culture. Argumentative, Cognitive and Linguistic Perspectives, Sic Sat, Amsterdam. Also published in: T. Suzuki, Y. Yano and T. Kato (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Tokyo Conference on Argumentation, Japan Debate Association., Tokyo, 37–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser (eds.): 2002, Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, B. Meuffels and M. Verburg: 2000, ‘The (Un)reasonableness of the Argumentum Ad Hominem’, Language and Social Psychology 19, 416–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London. Reprinted at Vale Press, Newport News.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S.: 1995, ‘Fallacies and Heuristics’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), Volume II, Sic Sat. Amsterdam, 257–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, ‘Of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 66, 251–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1982, The Rhetoric of Witnessing and Hackling: A Case Study in Ethnorhetoric. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1981, ‘Argument as a Natural Category: The Routine Grounds for Arguing in Natural Conversation’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1982, ‘Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach’, in J. R. Cox and C. A. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, IL, 205–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983, ‘Strategy and Structure in Conversational Influence Attempts’, Communication Monographs 50, 285–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.: 2000, Manifest Rationality. A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leff, M.: 2000, ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic in the Twenty-first Century’, Argumentation 14, 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E.: 2001, Return to Reason, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, Ch. A.: 1995, Liberal Alarms and Rhetorical Excursions. A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. The Development of the Pragma-dialectical Approach to Argumentation. Argumentation 17, 387–403 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026338402751

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026338402751

Navigation