Considering Pragma Dialectics

As an exceptional volume and a fitting tribute, this work will be of interest to all argumentation scholars considering the astute insights and scholarly legacy of Frans van Eemeren.

Considering Pragma Dialectics

Considering Pragma-Dialectics honors the monumental contributions of one of the foremost international figures in current argumentation scholarship: Frans van Eemeren. The volume presents the research efforts of his colleagues and addresses how their work relates to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation with which van Eemeren’s name is so intimately connected. This tribute serves to highlight the varied approaches to the study of argumentation and is destined to inspire researchers to advance scholarship in the field far into the future. Replete with contributions from highly-esteemed academics in argumentation study, chapters in this volume address such topics as: *Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments; *Pragma-dialectics and self-advocacy in physician-patient interactions; *The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem family; *Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument; and *The semantics of reasonableness. As an exceptional volume and a fitting tribute, this work will be of interest to all argumentation scholars considering the astute insights and scholarly legacy of Frans van Eemeren.

Considering Pragma Dialectics

What precisely is the role of logic in the pragma-dialectical approach? Certain statements and developments raise this question for me. In Anyone Who Has a View, the Editors say that ...

Considering Pragma Dialectics

Considering Pragma-Dialectics honors the monumental contributions of one of the foremost international figures in current argumentation scholarship: Frans van Eemeren. The volume presents the research efforts of his colleagues and addresses how their work relates to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation with which van Eemeren’s name is so intimately connected. This tribute serves to highlight the varied approaches to the study of argumentation and is destined to inspire researchers to advance scholarship in the field far into the future. Replete with contributions from highly-esteemed academics in argumentation study, chapters in this volume address such topics as: *Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments; *Pragma-dialectics and self-advocacy in physician-patient interactions; *The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem family; *Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument; and *The semantics of reasonableness. As an exceptional volume and a fitting tribute, this work will be of interest to all argumentation scholars considering the astute insights and scholarly legacy of Frans van Eemeren.

Contextualizing Pragma Dialectics

In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics: A festchrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp.121–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002).

Contextualizing Pragma Dialectics

Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics contains a selection of 18 article reporting on research conducted in the past decade in which the institutional context in which argumentative discourse takes place is systematically taken into account. Some articles provide relevant theoretical backgrounds, other articles make clear how the extended pragma-dialectical theory can be used to analyse and evaluate argumentative discourse in specific institutional contexts. Next to argumentative discourse in the legal domain and the medical context of health communication, a great deal of attention is paid to various argumentative practices in the political domain or dealing with specific social issues. A contribution on multimodal argumentation is also included. All contributing authors are actively engaged in the International Learned Institute for Argumentation Studies (ILIAS).

Keeping in Touch With Pragma Dialectics

When reasons matter most: Pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent. In: P. Houtlosser, & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 75–85, Ch. 7), Mahwah/London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keeping in Touch With Pragma Dialectics

"Keeping in touch with Pragma-Dialectics" is written to honor Frans van Eemeren and his work in the field of argumentation theory on the occasion of his retirement. The volume contains 17 contributions from teams of authors consisting of a combination of a pragma-dialectician and one or two researchers with a different background in the field of argumentation. In this volume, comparisons between the pragma-dialectical approach and other approaches are made, aspects of strategic maneuvering such as the use of presentational techniques, adaptation to the audience and the selection of topics are dealt with and the influence of specific institutional contexts such as politics, medicine and internet forums on strategic maneuvering are discussed.

Argumentation Theory A Pragma Dialectical Perspective

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. 35–49). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grice, H. P. (1975).

Argumentation Theory  A Pragma Dialectical Perspective

The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory overview of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In presenting this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goal-directed communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. As a result, the book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which are discussed in a number of separate publications, hang together. The following crucial topics are discussed: (1) argumentation theory as a discipline; (2) the meta-theoretical principles of pragma-dialectics; (3) the model of a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion; (4) fallacies as violations of a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse; (5) descriptive research of argumentative reality; (6) analysis as theoretically-motivated reconstruction; (7) strategic manoeuvring aimed at combining achieving effectiveness with maintaining reasonableness; (8) the conventionalization of argumentative practices; (9) prototypical argumentative patterns; (10) pragma-dialectics amidst other approaches. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective is clearly written and makes argumentation theory understandable to all scholars and advanced students interested in argumentation research.

Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse

9.8 Conclusion In conclusion, it can be said that the various kinds of critics of pragma-dialectics, depending on their own views of argumentation and ... In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics.

Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse

This volume presents 50 contributions on the themes of reasonableness and effectiveness and their connections, which are central issues in argumentation theory. It discusses van Eemeren’s views on the study of argumentation; the approach to argumentation adopted in pragma-dialectics; pragma-dialectical perspectives on the dialectical and pragmatic dimensions of argumentative discourse; the notion of strategic maneuvering; the pragma-dialectical method of analyzing argumentative discourse; the treatment of fallacies as violations of rules for critical discussion; pragma-dialectical views on context, the role of logic, verbal indicators of argumentative moves and argument schemes; and the process of writing and rewriting argumentative texts. The pragma-dialectical quantitative approach to empirical research on argumentative discourse is illustrated by reporting on selected, illustrative experimental studies, as well as qualitative studies of historical cases.

Dialogue and Rhetoric

“The Pragma-dialectical Analysis of the ad hominem Fallacy”. Considering Pragmadialectics. A Festschrift for Frans van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60” birthday ed. by Peter Houtlosser and M. Agnes van Rees, 109-119.

Dialogue and Rhetoric

The volume deals with the relationship between dialogue and rhetoric. The actual state of the art in dialogue analysis is characterized by a tendency to overcome the distinction between competence and performance and to combine components from both sides of the dichotomy, in a way which includes rules as well as inferences. The same is true of rhetoric: the guidelines proposed here no longer state that rationality and persuasion are mutually exclusive but suggest that they interact in what might be called the ‘mixed game’. The concept of a dialogic rhetoric thus poses the question of how to integrate the different voices. Part I of the volume assembles several ‘rhetorical paradigms’ which are applied to real-life performance. Part II on ‘rhetoric in the mixed game’ contains a selection of papers which illustrate the interaction of various components. The Round Table discussion in Part III brings proponents of different paradigms face to face with each other and shows how they justify their own positions and present arguments against rival paradigms.

Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse

The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem fallacy. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics: A festchrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 109–120).

Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse

In "Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse," Frans H. van Eemeren" "brings together the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of argumentation by introducing the concept of strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering refers to the arguer s continual efforts to reconcile aiming for effectiveness with being reasonable. It takes place in all stages of argumentative discourse and manifests itself simultaneously in the choices that are made from the topical potential available at a particular stage, in adaptation to audience demand, and in the use of specific presentational devices. Strategic maneuvering derails when in the specific context in which the discourse takes place a rule for critical discussion has been violated, so that a fallacy has been committed. Van Eemeren makes clear that extending the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation by taking account of strategic maneuvering leads to a richer and more precise method for analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse."

Argumentation across Communities of Practice

Dialectics of Nature. London: Wellred Books. Finocchiaro, M. (2006). Reflections on the Hyper Dialectical Definition of Argument. Considering Pragma-Dialectics. In P. Houtlosser, & A. van Rees (Eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp.

Argumentation across Communities of Practice

Featuring multidisciplinary and transcultural investigations, this volume showcases state-of-the-art scholarship about the impact of argumentation-based discourses and field-specific argumentation practices in a wide range of communities of practice belonging to the media, social, legal and political spheres. The investigations make use of integrative, wide-ranging theoretical perspectives and empirical research methodologies with a focus on argumentation strategies in real-life environments, both private and public, and in constantly growing virtual environments. This book brings together linguists, argumentation scholars, philosophers and communication specialists who convincingly show how interpersonal and/or intergroup interactions shape, challenge or change the argumentative practices of users, what argumentation skills and strategies become critical and consequential, how argumentative discourse contexts may stimulate or prevent critical reflection and debate, and what are the wider implications at personal, institutional and societal levels. Reaching beyond the boundaries of linguistics and argumentation sciences, this book should be a valuable resource for researchers as well as practitioners in the fields of pragmatic linguistics, argumentation studies, rhetoric, discourse analysis, political sciences and media studies.

Paul s Argumentation in Galatians

Table 2.2: Difl'erences between informal logic and the PD approach mom LOGIC PRAGMA-DIALBCTICS text-based speech-based ... see Peter Houtlosser and Agnes van Rees (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (Festschrift Frans H. van Eemeren; ...

Paul s Argumentation in Galatians

Galatians is a polemical letter which contains a substantial amount of argumentative passages. Paul evidently wanted to persuade by using the best arguments possible to convince his addressees. Using a state-of-the-art method from the discipline of argumentation analysis, Paul's argumentation can be analysed with a precision that standard exegetical methods cannot provide. The pragma-dialectical method developed in Amsterdam facilitates an analysis which is both descriptive and normative. On the one hand, Paul's argumentation can be described, such as the relationship between premisses and conclusions, the structure of the arguments, and features relating to rhetorical strategy. On the other hand, the method makes it possible to evaluate Paul's argumentation against a set of rules for sound reasoning. Fallacies and problematic arguments can be described accurately. The spiritual nature of Paul's matters do not relieve him of rationality, and Paul himself does not argue as if it did. Paul's argumentation is found problematic in several respects. There is a tension in the text: Paul works a great deal to argue his claims while at the same time giving the impression that he merely wants to declare his standpoints and does not want to carry out an argumentation at all. Many of the conclusions are presented as self-evident, even when they are not. Paul's style is far from an ideal model of the resolution of a dispute. Paul relies heavily on an argumentative strategy with maximal use of rhetorical devices. The analysis shows that a contemporary method of argumentation analysis provides tools necessary to adequately describe and understand both individual arguments and the overarching strategy of the argumentation in a Pauline text.

Argumentation and Health

Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates ... In Considering Pragma-Dialectics, ed. by P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees, 75–85. Mahwah and London: Lawrence Erlbaum ...

Argumentation and Health

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the role of argumentation in the health care domain. Argumentation and Health is a collection of essays by argumentation theorists reflecting on the way in which the institutional context of health care shapes the argumentative interaction. The volume provides for the first time an overview of the most important recent developments and achievements of the study of argumentation in medical and public oriented health communication. In Argumentation and Health , attention is paid to argumentation in different forms of health communication, such as the medical consultation, direct-to-consumer drug advertising, health brochures and health risk communication. This book is of interest to argumentation theorists, (health) communication scholars, healthcare practitioners, students of medicine and health-related fields, and all other researchers and practitioners interested in the function and characteristics of argumentation in health communication. Originally published in Journal of Argumentation in Context, Vol. 1:1 (2012).

Inference in Argumentation

The pragma-dialectical ideal of reasonableness and an education for critical thinking and for the building of a moral community. In P. Houtlosser and A. van Rees (Eds), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 211–222).

Inference in Argumentation

This book investigates the role of inference in argumentation, considering how arguments support standpoints on the basis of different loci. The authors propose and illustrate a model for the analysis of the standpoint-argument connection, called Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT). A prominent feature of the AMT is that it distinguishes, within each and every single argumentation, between an inferential-procedural component, on which the reasoning process is based; and a material-contextual component, which anchors the argument in the interlocutors’ cultural and factual common ground. The AMT explains how these components differ and how they are intertwined within each single argument. This model is introduced in Part II of the book, following a careful reconstruction of the enormously rich tradition of studies on inference in argumentation, from the antiquity to contemporary authors, without neglecting medieval and post-medieval contributions. The AMT is a contemporary model grounded in a dialogue with such tradition, whose crucial aspects are illuminated in this book.

Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies

So, pragma-dialectical critical discussions absolutely do not model the critical rationalist procedure of conjecture and refutation. Although I consider Lumer's critique to be overstated and do not share Lumer's neopositivist ...

Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies

CDS is a multifarious field constantly developing different methodological frameworks for analysing dynamically evolving aspects of language in a broad range of socio-political and institutional contexts. This volume is a cutting-edge, interdisciplinary account of these theoretical and empirical developments. It presents an up-to-date survey of Critical Discourse Studies (CDS), covering both the theoretical landscape and the analytical territories that it extends over. It is intended for critical scholars and students who wish to keep abreast of the current state of the art. The book is divided into two parts. In the first part, the chapters are organised around different methodological perspectives for CDS (history, cognition, multimodality and corpora, among others). In the second part, the chapters are organised around particular discourse types and topics investigated in CDS, both traditionally (e.g. issues of racism and gender inequality) and only more recently (e.g. issues of health, public policy, and the environment). This is, altogether, an essential new reference work for all CDS practitioners.

The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia

In the pragma-dialectic approach, fallacies are analyzed as such incorrect discussion moves in which a discussion rule has been ... A. (eds) (2006) Considering Pragma-Dialectics, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. van Eemeren, F.H. (ed.) ...

The Routledge Pragmatics Encyclopedia

First Published in 2009. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Examining Argumentation in Context

In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 161–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kienpointner, M. (2009). Plausible and fallacious strategies to silence one's opponent.

Examining Argumentation in Context

"Examining Argumentation in Context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering "contains a selection of papers on strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Starting point of all of these contributions is that a satisfactory analysis and evaluation of strategic maneuvering is possible only if the argumentative discourse is first situated in the communicative and interactional context in which it occurs. While some of the contributions present general views with regard to strategic maneuvering, other contributions report on the results of empirical studies, examine strategic maneuvering in a particular legal or political context, or highlight the presentational design of strategic maneuvering. "Examining Argumentation in Context" therefore provides an insightful" "view of recent developments in the research on strategic maneuvering, which is currently prominent in the study of argumentation.

Arguing Reasoning and Thinking Well

When reasons matter most: Pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 72–82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hample, D. (2010).

Arguing  Reasoning  and Thinking Well

Arguing, Reasoning, and Thinking Well offers an engaging and accessible introduction to argumentation and critical thinking. With a pro-social focus, the volume encourages readers to value civility when engaged in arguing and reasoning. Authors Gass and Seiter, renowned for their friendly writing style, include real-world examples, hypothetical dialogues, and editorial cartoons to invite readers in. The text includes a full chapter devoted to the ethics of argument, as well as content on refutation and formal logic. It is designed for students in argumentation and critical thinking courses in communication, philosophy, and psychology departments, and is suitable for students and general education courses across the curriculum.

Recovering Argument

Effectiveness through reasonableness: Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26, 33–53. van Eemeren, ... A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 313– 324). New York, NY: Routledge.

Recovering Argument

This volume presents the best scholarship from the 19th National Communication Association/American Forensic Association Conference on Argumentation, which took place July 30-August 2, 2015, at Cliff Lodge, Snowbird Resort, in Alta, Utah. The Alta Conference, first held in 1979, is the oldest conference in argumentation studies in the world and biennially brings together a lively group of scholars, representing a variety of countries, with diverse perspectives on the theory and practice of argument. The essays in Recovering Argument invite reflection upon and reconsideration of argumentation’s legacy, present status, and potential roles in social, cultural, and political life. Readers will encounter essays that treat the relationship between argumentation and memory, historical approaches to argumentation, the vitality of public and interpersonal argument, argument’s role in leadership, discursive and presentational forms of argument, and the challenges of difference. Readers also will find these topics addressed from a variety of historical, social-scientific, and critical-interpretive perspectives.

Evaluating the Language of Argument

Reflections on the Hyper Dialectical Definition of Argument: Considering Pragma-Dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 51–62). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Finocchiaro, M. (2007).

Evaluating the Language of Argument

This book is concerned with the evaluation of natural argumentative discourse, and, in particular, with the language in which arguments are expressed. It introduces a systematic procedure for the analysis and assessment of arguments, which is designed to be a practical tool, and may be considered a pseudo-algorithm for argument evaluation. The first half of the book lays the theoretical groundwork, with a thorough examination of both the nature of language and the nature of argument. This leads to a definition of argumentation as reasoning expressed within a procedure, which itself yields the three frames of analysis used in the evaluation procedure: Process, Reasoning, and Expression. The second half begins with a detailed discussion of the concept of fallacy, with particular attention on fallacies of language, their origin and their effects. A new way of looking at fallacies emerges from these chapters, and it is that conception, together with the understanding of the nature of argumentation described in earlier sections, which ultimately provides the support for the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation. The first two levels of this innovative procedure are outlined, while the third, that dealing with language, and involving the development of an Informal Argument Semantics, is fully described. The use of the system, and its power of analysis, are illustrated through the evaluation of a variety of examples of argumentative texts.

The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric

Considering pragma-dialectics. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum. Huby, P. 1989. "Cicero's 'Topics' and its Peripatetic sources". In W. W. Fortenbaugh and P. Steinmetz (eds.), 61-76. Huby, P. M. 2006. Theophrastus' logic. Leiden: Brill.

The Art of Dialectic Between Dialogue and Rhetoric

This book reconstructs the tradition of dialectic from Aristotle's "Topics," its founding text, up to its "renaissance" in 16th century Italy, and focuses on the role of dialectic in the production of knowledge. Aristotle defines dialectic as a structured exchange of questions and answers and thus links it to dialogue and disputation, while Cicero develops a mildly skeptical version of dialectic, identifies it with reasoning "in utramque partem" and connects it closely to rhetoric. These two interpretations constitute the backbone of the living tradition of dialectic and are variously developed in the Renaissance against the Medieval background. The book scrutinizes three separate contexts in which these developments occur: Rudolph Agricola's attempt to develop a new dialectic in close connection with rhetoric, Agostino Nifo's thoroughly Aristotelian approach and its use of the newly translated commentaries of Alexander of Aphrodisias and Averroes, and Carlo Sigonio's literary theory of the dialogue form, which is centered around Aristotle's "Topics." Today, Aristotelian dialectic enjoys a new life within argumentation theory: the final chapter of the book briefly revisits these contemporary developments and draws some general epistemological conclusions linking the tradition of dialectic to a fallibilist view of knowledge.

Topics and Trends in Current Science Education

Cognitive models and information transfer. Social Science Information Studies, 4, 111–129. Blair, J. A. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and pragma-dialectics. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics.

Topics and Trends in Current Science Education

This book features 35 of best papers from the 9th European Science Education Research Association Conference, ESERA 2011, held in Lyon, France, September 5th-9th 2011. The ESERA international conference featured some 1,200 participants from Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe as well as North and South America offering insight into the field at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. This book presents studies that represent the current orientations of research in science education and includes studies in different educational traditions from around the world. It is organized into six parts around the three poles (content, students, teachers) and their interrelations of science education: after a general presentation of the volume (first part), the second part concerns SSI (Socio-Scientific Issues) dealing with new types of content, the third the teachers, the fourth the students, the fifth the relationships between teaching and learning, and the sixth the teaching resources and the curricula.