Abstracts
Abstract
To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start answering the crucial question about the typical characteristics of their discourse asked by interested lawyers, politicians, academics and other practitioners of argumentation.
Keywords:
- communicative activity types,
- communicative domains,
- critical discussion model,
- pragma-dialectics,
- strategic manoeuvring
Résumé
L'article retrace le parcours de la théorie pragma-dialectique et son champ élargissant d'application, étape par étape, à partir d'un modèle abstrait de discussion critique jusqu’aux complexités du discours argumentatif actuel. Il décrit comment les pragma-dialecticiens ont au début employé une approche contextualisée, empirique et formalisée et maintenant ils font bon usage des instruments analytiques de la théorie en identifiant des modèles argumentatifs prototypiques dans des types d'activités communicatives spécifiques dans les différents domaines de communication. Cela signifie que ils peuvent maintenant commencer à répondre à la question cruciale sur les caractéristiques typiques de leur discours posée par les avocats intéressés, les politiciens, les universitaires et par les autres praticiens de l'argumentation
Appendices
Bibliography
- Barth, E.M., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
- Bex, F.J., Prakken, H., Reed, C., & Walton, D.N. (2003). Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence. Argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 125–165.
- Doury, M. (2009). Argument schemes typologies in practice. The case of comparative arguments. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation. Twenty essays on theoretical issues (pp. 141-155). New York: Springer. Argumentation Library 14.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (Ed. 2001). Crucial concepts in argumentation theory. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (2015a). Argumentation studies’ five estates. In F.H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragmadialectics (pp. 81-109). Cham etc.: Springer.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (2015b). Bingo! Promising developments in argumentation theory. In F.H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen, Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 3-25). Heidelberg etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 28.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (2015c). From ideal model of critical discussion to situated argumentative discourse: The step-by-step development of the pragmadialectical theory of argumentation. In F.H. van Eemeren, Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragmadialectics (pp. 127-147). Cham etc.: Springer.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (2017). Argumentative patterns viewed from a pragmadialectical perspective. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 7-29). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
- Eemeren, F.H. van (Ed. 2017), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, & Garssen, B. (2010). Constraints on political deliberation: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In D. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social context. Selected papers from the 16th Biennial Conference on Argumentation sponsored by the National Communication and the American Forensic Association (pp. 505-514). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J.H.M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 16.
- Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2012). The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: Strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. Thinking & Reasoning 18(3), 344-364.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragmadialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., & Meuffels, B. (1989). The skill of identifying argumentation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 25(4), 239-245.
- Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131-159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Argumentation Library 6.
- Freeman, J.B. (2011). Argument structure. Representation and theory. Dordrecht/New York: Springer. Argumentation Library 18.
- Garssen, B. (2017). The role of pragmatic problem-solving argumentation in plenary debate in the European Parliament. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Prototypical argumentative patterns. Exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and institutional context (pp. 31-51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 11.
- Goodnight, G.T. (2012). The personal, technical, and public spheres. A note on 21st century critical communication enquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(4), 258-267.
- Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
- Hample, D. & Dallinger, J.M. (1987). Cognitive editing of argument strategies. Human Communication Research, 14, 123-144.
- Hitchcock, D.L. (2003). Toulmin’s warrants. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & A.F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argument (pp. 69–82). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
- Johnson, R.H., & Blair, J.A. (2006). Logical self-defense (U.S. edition). New York: International Debate Education Association.
- Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. London: Allen and Unwin.
- O’Keefe, D.J. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and persuasion research results. In P. Houtlosser & M.A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 235243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
- Tindale, C.W. (1999). Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Toulmin, S.E. (1973). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19, 347-371.
- Walton, D.N. (1996a). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Walton, D.N. (1996b). Argument structure. A pragmatic theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- Walton, D.N., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
- Walton, D.N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Zarefsky, D. (1986). President Johnson’s war on poverty. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.