Argumentation 11 (4):419-434 (1997)
| 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.
|
| Keywords | Reconstruction fallacies pragma-dialectics and conversation analysis |
| Categories | (categorize this paper) |
| DOI | 10.1023/A:1007799305146 |
| Options |
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Request removal from index
|
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Development of the Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2003 - Argumentation 17 (4):387-403.
Frans H. Van Eemeren: Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation: John Benjamins Publishing Company, Argumentation in Context , Vol. 2, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2010, XII + 308 Pp. [REVIEW]Eddo Rigotti - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):261-270.
Facework and Rhetorical Strategies in Intercultural Argumentative Discourse.Inga B. Dolinina & Vittorina Cecchetto - 1998 - Argumentation 12 (2):167-181.
Speech Act Conditions as Tools for Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse.FransH Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (4):367-383.
In Context: Giving Contextualization its Rightful Place in the Study of Argumentation.Frans H. van Eemeren - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):141-161.
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.
Preaching to the Converted. Why Argue When Everyone Agrees?Marianne Doury - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):99-114.
Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation.Raphaël Micheli - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):115-126.
Representation of Argumentation in Text with Rhetorical Structure Theory.Nancy L. Green - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (2):181-196.
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
The Assessment of Argumentation From Expert Opinion.Jean H. M. Wagemans - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):329-339.
On Some Aristotelian Sources of Modern Argumentation Theory.Christof Rapp & Tim Wagner - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):7-30.
Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2000 - Argumentation 14 (3):293-305.
Analytics
Added to PP index
2010-09-11
Total views
30 ( #349,526 of 2,420,991 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #543,757 of 2,420,991 )
2010-09-11
Total views
30 ( #349,526 of 2,420,991 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #543,757 of 2,420,991 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
