9 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Frans H. Eemeren [7]Frans H. Van Eemeren [2]
  1. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
    In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analysing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. They develop a method for the reconstruction of argumentative discourse that takes into account all aspects that are relevant to a critical assessment. They also propose a practical code of behaviour (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   60 citations  
  2.  64
    Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1987 - Argumentation 1 (3):283-301.
    In the pragma-dialectical approach, fallacies are considered incorrect moves in a discussion for which the goal is successful resolution of a dispute. Ten rules are given for effective conduct at the various stages of such a critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding). Fallacies are discussed as violations of these rules, taking into account all speech acts which are traditionally recognized as fallacies. Special attention is paid to the role played by implicitness in fallacies in everyday language use. It is stressed (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   53 citations  
  3.  66
    Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum Ad Hominem. [REVIEW]Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):141-159.
    This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  4.  67
    In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics.Frans H. Eemeren - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (1):49-70.
    According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5.  30
    Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies.Katarzyna Budzynska, Frans H. Van Eemeren & Marcin Koszowy - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):7-22.
    Pragmatics and dialectics are two disciplines which have been amongst the first and most important partners for argument studies in the exploration of the complex realm of communication. Treating argumentation as a construct consisting of premises and conclusion allows for investigating some interesting properties of the phenomenon of reasoning, but does not capture a variety of aspects related to the usage of natural language and dialogical context in which real-life argumentation is typically embedded. This special issue explores some of the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  6.  51
    The Pragma-Dialectical Theory Under Discussion.Frans H. Eemeren - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (4):439-457.
    During the past thirty years the pragma-dialectical theorizing has developed in various steps from designing an abstract ideal model for critical discussion to examining strategic manoeuvring in the various argumentative activity types in which argumentative discourse manifests itself in argumentative reality. The response to the theoretical proposals that have been made includes, next to approval, also various kinds of criticisms. This paper explores the nature and thrust of these criticisms. In doing so, a distinction is made between criticisms concerning the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  7.  42
    Effectiveness Through Reasonableness Preliminary Steps to Pragma-Dialectical Effectiveness Research.Frans H. Eemeren, Bart Garssen & Bert Meuffels - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):33-53.
    The introduction of the concept of strategic maneuvering into the pragma-dialectical theory makes it possible to formulate testable hypotheses regarding the persuasiveness of argumentative moves that are made in argumentative discourse. After summarizing the standard pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, van Eemeren, Garssen, and Meuffels explain what the extension of the pragma-dialectical approach with strategic maneuvering involves and discuss the fallacies in terms of the extended pragma-dialectical approach as derailments of strategic maneuvering. Then they give an empirical interpretation of the extended (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  8.  11
    Editors' Introduction.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):137-139.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  9.  45
    Rules for Argumentation in Dialogues.Frans H. Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):499-510.
    In this article it is pointed out what kind of rules for communication and argumentation are required in order to make it possible to resolve disputes in an orderly way. In section 2, Gricean maxims and Searlean speech act conditions are integrated in such a way that five general rules for communication can be formulated. In section 3, starting from Lewis's definition of convention, it is argued that the interactional effect of accepting is conventionally linked with the complex communicative act (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations