Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse pp 253–271Cite as

A Pragma-Dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1726 Accesses

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 27))

Abstract

In a critical discussion that proceeds in accordance with a pragma-dialectical discussion procedure, the protagonist and the antagonist try to find out systematically whether the protagonist’s standpoint is capable of withstanding the antagonist’s criticism.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This article, based on van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2003), presents an amended version of the pragma-dialectical procedure for conducting a critical discussion proposed in van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984).

  2. 2.

    The logical starting point that an assertion and its denial cannot both be true at the same time has a consequence for the discussion that one of the two assertions has to be withdrawn. Some critical-rationalists concluded from this predicament that the dialectical scrutiny of claims in a critical discussion boils down to the exposure of contradictions. Barth and Krabbe (1982) have developed a dialectical method for detecting contradictions that entails examining whether a particular thesis does not lead to contractions with certain concessions, i.e., is tenable in the light of these concessions. If simultaneously maintaining the standpoint and the concessions leads to contradictions, either the standpoint or one or more of the concessions must be abandoned.

  3. 3.

    The reasonableness of the procedure is derived from the possibility it creates to resolve differences of opinion (its problem validity) in combination with its acceptability to the discussants (its conventional validity). See Barth and Krabbe (1982, 21–22).

  4. 4.

    In fact, the pragma-dialectical rules aspire to comply with the more specific norms implicitly posed by Barth and Krabbe (1982) such as systematicity, realism, thoroughness, orderliness, and dynamism.

  5. 5.

    In the case of a mixed dispute, it is thus not the case that the onus of proof has to be conferred on one of the two discussants; both discussants bear a particular onus of proof.

  6. 6.

    See Hamblin (1970) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002).

  7. 7.

    See van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2003).

  8. 8.

    The following explanation might be didactically helpful. At this stage, the discussants have not yet reached full agreement on all the premises that, apart from the premise at issue, are to be accepted, and the discussion rules that are to be applied. The sub-discussion that is required, of course, cannot be conducted effectively until such an agreement has been reached.

  9. 9.

    See van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992, 92–102).

  10. 10.

    We refer here not only to further elaborations, specifications and above all operationalizations that are called for, but also to fulfilling the ‘higher order conditions’. See van Eemeren et al. (1993, 30–34) and van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2003, Chap. 8).

References

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht-Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2003). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). A pragmatic view of the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.). Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst

Authors
  1. Frans H. van Eemeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rob Grootendorst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans H. van Eemeren .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. (2015). A Pragma-Dialectical Procedure for a Critical Discussion. In: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation