Argumentation 3 (4):367-383 (1989)
AbstractAccording to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, for analysing argumentative discourse, a normative reconstruction is required which encompasses four kinds of transformations. It is explained in this paper how speech act conditions can play a part in carrying out such a reconstruction. It is argued that integrating Searlean insights concerning speech acts with Gricean insights concerning conversational maxims can provide us with the necessary tools. For this, the standard theory of speech acts has to be amended in several respects and the conversational maxims have to be translated into speech act conditions. Making use of the rules for communication thus arrived at, and starting from the distribution of speech acts in a critical discussion as specified in the pragma-dialectical model, it is then demonstrated how indirect speech acts are to be transformed when reconstructing argumentative discourse
Similar books and articles
Reconstructing Interactive Argumentative Discourse.Margareth Sandvik - 1997 - Argumentation 11 (4):419-434.
The Paradox of Negation in N G Rjuna's Philosophy.Kartikeya C. Patel - 1994 - Asian Philosophy 4 (1):17 – 32.
Argumentation and Speech Act Theory.FransH Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (4):341-343.
How to Make and Defend a Proposal in a Deliberation Dialogue.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3):177-239.
From Connectives to Argumentative Markers: A Quest for Markers of Argumentative Moves and of Related Aspects of Argumentative Discourse. [REVIEW]Assimakis Tseronis - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (4):427-447.
The Dynamics of Discourse Situations (Extended Abstract).Massimo Poesio & Reinhard Muskens - 1997 - In Paul Dekker, Martin Stokhof & Yde Venema (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Amsterdam Colloquium. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. pp. 247-252.
Linguistic Authority and Convention in a Speech Act Analysis of Pornography.Nellie Wieland - 2007 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 85 (3):435 – 456.
Reconstructing and Assessing the Conditions of Meaningfulness. An Argumentative Approach to Presupposition.Fabrizio Macagno - 2012 - In H. Ribeiro (ed.), Inside Arguments: Logic And The Study of Argumentation. Cambridge Scholars Press. pp. 247--268.
What is It to Understand a Directive Speech Act?Andreas Dorschel - 1989 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67 (3):319 – 340.
The Pornography / Civil Rights Ordinance V. The BOG: And the Winner Is...?Melinda Vadas - 1992 - Hypatia 7 (3):94 - 109.
Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives.Savas L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) - 1994 - Routledge.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Non-Inferential Aspects of Ad Hominem and Ad Baculum.Katarzyna Budzynska & Maciej Witek - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):301-315.
Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):41-58.
Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion.Jacky Visser - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):245-266.
References found in this work
Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 1975 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 47.
Logic and Conversation.H. P. Grice - 1975 - In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: pp. 64-75.
Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts.John Rogers Searle - 1979 - Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.