Abstract
A key and continuing concern within the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is how to account for effective persuasion disciplined by dialectical rationality. Currently, van Eemeren and Houtlosser offer one response to this concern in the form of strategic manoeuvring. This paper offers a prior/passing theory of communicative interaction as a supplement to the strategic manoeuvring approach. Our use of a prior/passing model investigates how a difference of opinion can be resolved while both dialectic obligations of reasonableness and rhetorical ambitions of argumentative success are simultaneously accommodated. The paper explores the model with particular reference to the pragma-dialectical rules of critical discussion, strategic manoeuvring and fallacious reasoning.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkin A., Richardson J. E., 2003, Constructing the (imagined) Antagonist in Advertising Argumentation in van Eemeren F. H., Blair J. A., Willard C. A., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of ISSA Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 39–44
Davidson D., 1986, A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs in LePore E., (ed.) Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson Blackwell Oxford pp. 433–446
Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., 2004, Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation, Lea Publishers, Mahwah
Eemeren F. H. van, 1994, The Study of Argumentation asNormative Pragmatics, in van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R., (eds.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 3–8
Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Meuffels B., 2003a, The Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Freedom Rule in van Eemeren F. H., Blair J. A., Willard C. A., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of ISSA Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 275–280
Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Meuffels B., 2003b, I Don’t have Anything to Prove Here. The (Un)reasonableness of Evading the Burden of Proof in van Eemeren F. H., Blair J. A., Willard C. A., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of ISSA Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 281–284
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Meuffels, B.: 2005a, Ordinary Language users’ Assessments of Misuse of Argument Schemes’, in D. Hitchcock (ed.), The Uses of Argument, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), pp. 66–74
Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Meuffels B., 2005b, The Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Freedom Rule in van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P., (eds.) Argumentation in Practice John Benjamins Publishers Amsterdam/Philadelphia
Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., 1994, Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective in van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R., (eds.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sat Amsterdam pp.11–28
Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., 2004, A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach Cambridge University Press Cambridge
Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 1997, ‚Rhetoric in pragma-dialectics’, Conference paper presented at the 10th AFA/SCA Conference on Argumentation in Alta
Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., 1999, Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497
Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., 2002a, Strategic Manoeuvring with the Burden of Proof in van Eemeren F. H., (ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sat Amsterdam pp.13–28
Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., 2002b, Strategic Manoeuvring: Maintaining a Delicate Balance in van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P., (eds.) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Whoof of Argumentation Analysis Kluwer Academic Publishers Dordrecht & Boston pp 131–159
Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., 2003, Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring: The argumentum ad vericundium, A Case in Point in van Eemeren F. H., Blair J. A., Willard C. A., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of ISSA Sic Sat Amsterdam pp.289–292
Eemeren F. H. van, Meuffels B., 2002, Ordinary Arguers’ Judgments on ad hominem fallacies in van Eemeren F. H., (eds.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 45–64
Eemeren F. H. van, Meuffels B., Verburg M., 2000, ‚The (Un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem Language and Social Psychology 19(4): 416–435
Eemeren, F. H. van, R. Grootendorst, B. Meuffels, and M. Verburg: 2000, ‚The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies’, Argument, Interpretation, Rhetoric, available at: www.argumentation.spb.ru/2000_1/papers/1_2000p2.htm (consulted 19 April 2004)
Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendoorst R., Snoeck Henkemans A. F., Blair J. A., Johnson R. H., Krabbe E. C. W., Plantin Ch., Walton D. N., Willard C. A., Woods J., Zarefsky D., 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah, NJ
Grice H. P., 1975 Logic and Conversation in Cole P., Morgan J. L., (eds.) Syntax and Semantics: Vol 3 Speech Acts Academic Press New York pp.41–58
Johnson R. H., Blair J. A., 1977, Logical Self-defense McGraw-Hill Ryerson Toronto
Kent T., 1993, Paralogic Rhetoric: A Theory of Communicative Interaction Bucknell UP Lewisburg, PA
Perelman Ch., 1979, The New Rhetoric and the Humanitics, Dordrecht, Reidel
Rees M. A. van, 1994, Analysing and Evaluating Problem-Solving Discussion in van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R., (eds.) Studies in Pragma-Dialectics Sic Sat Amsterdam pp. 197–217
Richardson J. E., (2001) ‚Now is the Time to Put an End to All This. Argumentative Discourse Theory and Letters to the Editor Discourse and Society 12(2): 143–168
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, J.E., Atkin, A. 'You’re Being Unreasonable’: Prior and Passing Theories of Critical Discussion. Argumentation 20, 149–166 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9004-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9004-0