This document provides an overview of the pragma-dialectical approach to analyzing argumentative discourse. It discusses four key principles of the pragma-dialectical approach:
1) Externalization - It examines actual utterances rather than internal reasoning or intentions.
2) Functionalization - It considers arguments as part of an ongoing process to resolve disagreements rather than isolated products.
3) Socialization - It analyzes arguments as part of a dialogue between a protagonist and antagonist rather than a monologue.
4) Dialectification - It evaluates arguments according to norms of a critical discussion aimed at resolving differences of opinion.
Argumentation And Rhetoric In Visual And Multimodal CommunicationSara Alvarez
This document provides an introduction to the study of multimodal argumentation and rhetoric. It discusses how communication increasingly involves multiple modes beyond just language, such as images, sounds, and gestures. While disciplines traditionally focused on individual modes, the field of multimodal argumentation analyzes how modes work together to convey arguments. The introduction outlines different perspectives in the study of argumentation, such as logical, dialectical, and rhetorical, and how a multimodal approach draws from each. It also discusses terminology around visual, multimodal, argumentation, and rhetoric, proposing that "multimodal argumentation" best captures the combination of modes studied in the volume's contributions.
This document provides a summary of key concepts from David Zarefsky's lecture notes on chapters 1-12 of his book "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning". It discusses definitions of argumentation, rhetoric, logic, and dialectic. It also examines underlying assumptions of argumentation like the importance of audience and dealing with uncertainty. Formal and informal argumentation are explored as well as the history of argumentation studies. The document also summarizes analyses of arguments, case construction, the heart of controversies, attack and defense strategies, the role of language and style, and evaluating evidence.
A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATETye Rausch
This document summarizes a study analyzing the representation of arguments in senior high school debates in Bandung, Indonesia. The study used text analysis and involved purposively selecting a debate activity between senior high school students. The analysis focused on identifying arguments through examination of mood, modality, conjunctions, questions, and commands used in the debate. The study found that arguments were represented through extensive use of the declarative mood, median probability modality, extension conjunctions, and both declarative and explicitly subjective modality. The analysis of mood and modality provided insight into the interpersonal meaning and subtleties of language used in the debate genre. Such analysis could benefit English learners in improving their communicative competence and ability to develop arguments effectively
The document defines discourse and text and distinguishes between them. Discourse refers to a continuous stretch of spoken or written language larger than a sentence, while text can refer to the written result of speech, indirect or processed speech, or communication with no personal contact between agents. Discourse involves spontaneous speech in a situation with verbal and nonverbal communication and personal contact between two agents who take turns speaking and listening. Pragmatics and discourse are closely related, as pragmatics involves using language for a specific purpose or need, and discourse is the method of communicating an idea through written or spoken exchange of information. Both pragmatics and discourse focus on meaning and context over mere word definitions.
This document discusses different perspectives on analyzing discourse. It argues that discourse is best analyzed as a process rather than a structured entity. It proposes that procedural pragmatics, which aims to operationalize cognitive pragmatics, can provide a model for tracking the step-by-step processes of contextualization that underlie discourse interpretation. Discourse can be viewed as the dynamic modification of representations through successive utterances, rather than as a singular object with its own structural properties.
This document discusses different perspectives on analyzing discourse. It argues that discourse is best analyzed as a process rather than a structured entity. It proposes that procedural pragmatics, which aims to operationalize cognitive pragmatics, can provide a model for tracking the step-by-step processes of contextualization that underlie discourse interpretation. Discourse can be viewed as the dynamic modification of representations through successive utterances, rather than as a singular object in itself.
The document defines discourse and text and distinguishes between them. Discourse refers to a continuous stretch of spoken or written language larger than a sentence, while text can refer to the written result of speech, indirect or processed speech, or communication with no personal contact between agents. Discourse involves spontaneous speech in a situation with verbal and nonverbal communication between two agents who take turns between speaker and hearer roles. Pragmatics and discourse are closely related, as pragmatics involves using language for a specific purpose or need, and discourse is the method of communicating an idea through written or spoken exchange of information. Both pragmatics and discourse focus on meaning and context over mere word definitions.
Argumentation And Rhetoric In Visual And Multimodal CommunicationSara Alvarez
This document provides an introduction to the study of multimodal argumentation and rhetoric. It discusses how communication increasingly involves multiple modes beyond just language, such as images, sounds, and gestures. While disciplines traditionally focused on individual modes, the field of multimodal argumentation analyzes how modes work together to convey arguments. The introduction outlines different perspectives in the study of argumentation, such as logical, dialectical, and rhetorical, and how a multimodal approach draws from each. It also discusses terminology around visual, multimodal, argumentation, and rhetoric, proposing that "multimodal argumentation" best captures the combination of modes studied in the volume's contributions.
This document provides a summary of key concepts from David Zarefsky's lecture notes on chapters 1-12 of his book "Argumentation: The Study of Effective Reasoning". It discusses definitions of argumentation, rhetoric, logic, and dialectic. It also examines underlying assumptions of argumentation like the importance of audience and dealing with uncertainty. Formal and informal argumentation are explored as well as the history of argumentation studies. The document also summarizes analyses of arguments, case construction, the heart of controversies, attack and defense strategies, the role of language and style, and evaluating evidence.
A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATETye Rausch
This document summarizes a study analyzing the representation of arguments in senior high school debates in Bandung, Indonesia. The study used text analysis and involved purposively selecting a debate activity between senior high school students. The analysis focused on identifying arguments through examination of mood, modality, conjunctions, questions, and commands used in the debate. The study found that arguments were represented through extensive use of the declarative mood, median probability modality, extension conjunctions, and both declarative and explicitly subjective modality. The analysis of mood and modality provided insight into the interpersonal meaning and subtleties of language used in the debate genre. Such analysis could benefit English learners in improving their communicative competence and ability to develop arguments effectively
The document defines discourse and text and distinguishes between them. Discourse refers to a continuous stretch of spoken or written language larger than a sentence, while text can refer to the written result of speech, indirect or processed speech, or communication with no personal contact between agents. Discourse involves spontaneous speech in a situation with verbal and nonverbal communication and personal contact between two agents who take turns speaking and listening. Pragmatics and discourse are closely related, as pragmatics involves using language for a specific purpose or need, and discourse is the method of communicating an idea through written or spoken exchange of information. Both pragmatics and discourse focus on meaning and context over mere word definitions.
This document discusses different perspectives on analyzing discourse. It argues that discourse is best analyzed as a process rather than a structured entity. It proposes that procedural pragmatics, which aims to operationalize cognitive pragmatics, can provide a model for tracking the step-by-step processes of contextualization that underlie discourse interpretation. Discourse can be viewed as the dynamic modification of representations through successive utterances, rather than as a singular object with its own structural properties.
This document discusses different perspectives on analyzing discourse. It argues that discourse is best analyzed as a process rather than a structured entity. It proposes that procedural pragmatics, which aims to operationalize cognitive pragmatics, can provide a model for tracking the step-by-step processes of contextualization that underlie discourse interpretation. Discourse can be viewed as the dynamic modification of representations through successive utterances, rather than as a singular object in itself.
The document defines discourse and text and distinguishes between them. Discourse refers to a continuous stretch of spoken or written language larger than a sentence, while text can refer to the written result of speech, indirect or processed speech, or communication with no personal contact between agents. Discourse involves spontaneous speech in a situation with verbal and nonverbal communication between two agents who take turns between speaker and hearer roles. Pragmatics and discourse are closely related, as pragmatics involves using language for a specific purpose or need, and discourse is the method of communicating an idea through written or spoken exchange of information. Both pragmatics and discourse focus on meaning and context over mere word definitions.
Pragmatics and discourse analysis are closely related fields that both study language in use and context-dependent aspects of language. While they overlap considerably, pragmatics focuses more on utterances and speech acts, and recovering a speaker's intended meaning based on context. Discourse analysis examines longer stretches of language and how units are combined. Discourse pragmatics represents the intersection between the two fields. Key differences are that pragmatics considers context as dynamic while discourse analysis views it as more static, and pragmatics emphasizes inferring a speaker's intention across contexts. Both fields have evolved over time with different approaches emerging.
Discourse analysis and pragmatics are interrelated fields that both study language in use and context. Discourse analysis examines language beyond the sentence level and how linguistic units are connected into coherent wholes. It considers local speech acts and their connections as well as global structures. Pragmatics analyzes speaker meaning and how context helps interpret utterances. Both fields consider context, text, and function. While pragmatics focuses more on speaker intention, discourse analysis examines how stretches of language are structured together. Discourse pragmatics bridges the two fields by studying speech acts in texts and series.
Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics. Preliminary hypothesesLouis de Saussure
de Saussure Louis (2005). Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary
Hypotheses. In de Saussure Louis & Peter Schulz (Eds), Manipulation and Ideologies
in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 113-146.
Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 17
Uncorrected first proofs. Please refer to original text.
Academic Voices And Claims Reviewing Practices In Research WritingCharlie Congdon
This document summarizes a research paper that analyzes how politeness strategies involving reporting verbs are used in literature review chapters of English and Spanish PhD theses in computer science. It examines how writers establish their voice and attribute voices to other authors through citations and reporting verbs. The research compares 10 theses written in English at the University of Glasgow to 10 written in Spanish at the Polytechnic University of Valencia. It finds that English writers show more tentativeness and personal commitment, while Spanish writers tend to mask individual voices and avoid confrontation.
Argument Schemes Typologies In Practice The Case Of Comparative ArgumentsKimberly Pulley
This document discusses the classification of comparative arguments in academic literature and actual argumentative practices. It identifies four main parameters used to categorize comparative arguments in theoretical works: 1) whether the comparison involves cases from the same or different domains, 2) whether the comparison is qualitative or quantitative, 3) the epistemic status of the compared cases, and 4) whether the argument is used in a positive or negative/refutative way. The document then examines how these theoretical categories compare to the spontaneous perceptions and discussions of comparative arguments in real-world argumentative practices.
This document presents a semantic theory of word classes based on conceptual spaces. It argues that word classes can be given a cognitive grounding using this framework. Specifically:
- Nouns typically refer to concepts represented in multiple domains, capturing information about an object's color, shape, texture, etc. Nouns represent object categories.
- Adjectives typically refer to a single domain and represent properties like color or size. They denote convex regions within a domain.
- The theory aims to develop semantic models constructed from general cognitive mechanisms, not dependent on syntactic categories. It uses conceptual spaces to provide a cognitive analysis of the major word classes.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama's 2012 Speeches: Views from Syste...Bahram Kazemian
In the light of Halliday's Ideational Grammatical Metaphor, Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis, the major objectives of this study are to investigate and analyze Barack Obama's 2012 five speeches, which amount to 19383 words, from the point of frequency and functions of Nominalization, Rhetorical strategies, Passivization and Modality, in which we can grasp the effective and dominant principles and tropes utilized in political discourse. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis frameworks based on a Hallidayan perspective are used to depict the orator’s deft and clever use of these strategies in the speeches which are bound up with his overall political purposes. The results represent that nominalization, parallelism, unification strategies and modality have dominated in his speeches. There are some antithesis, expletive devices as well as passive voices in these texts. Accordingly, in terms of nominalization, some implications are drawn for political writing and reading, for translators and instructors entailed in reading and writing pedagogy.
Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level and how language is used in social contexts, while text analysis focuses on formal linguistic cohesive devices within written texts. Some researchers use the terms interchangeably, but most agree the distinction is unclear. Discourse analysis is broader in investigating language in use with consideration of context, while text analysis concentrates on linguistic features linking sentences. The field would benefit from abandoning the term "text" in favor of discourse analysis to avoid confusion.
An Investigation of the Reading Text ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ (Long Live Pakistan)...Bahram Kazemian
This paper is a critical study in Critical Discourse Analysis paradigm of a Textbook prescribed for intermediate students (Second Language Learners) in Government Colleges affiliated to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Larkana, Sindh, Pakistan. The textbook contains selected texts to improve students reading skills integrated with writing activities. Each of the texts contains questions at the end to be answered. It is observed that the reading tasks are badly designed and there is no mental activity to involve students in the text discourse. The study focuses on critical discourse of the underlying text to inspect whether the text reading involves students in the critical discourse or not; it also attempts to analyze the Reading Text ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ to identify problems showing the gap and unawareness on the part of teachers and students regarding the critical discourse of the text in classroom reading context. It is also suggested that teachers need to bring about a change in their traditional teaching methods in order to tackle the issue. The awareness of critical discourse analysis is recommended on the part of the teachers in order to analyze and understand the real meaning of the text. In result, it may develop the critical approach which is very essential for a reader.
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-LinguistsDominik Lukes
The document provides an overview of discourse analysis, including:
1) Defining discourse and the different approaches to discourse analysis.
2) Outlining some of the key concepts in discourse analysis like semiotics, meaning, and how discourse works.
3) Discussing the tools and techniques used in discourse analysis like conceptual frameworks, close reading, and quantitative analysis methods.
4) Critiquing the use of discourse analysis in education and providing guidance on when it may or may not be appropriate.
The document summarizes several theories and traditions related to communication and interpretation:
- The semiotic tradition examines the structure and organization of messages. Semiotics of language studies how language is influenced by and influences semiotics.
- The phenomenological tradition studies structures of consciousness from a first-person perspective, focusing on intentionality and how experiences are directed at objects.
- Reader-response theory (Stanley Fish) focuses on the reader's experience rather than the author/work, and how each reader creates their own unique interpretation.
- The rhetorical tradition explores the inherent connection between rhetoric and human experience, and how rhetoric impacts views of politics, ethics, and life.
- New rhetoric (Perel
The document discusses a discursive approach to training professional community educators. It draws on theories of Habermas around communicative action and validity claims to develop principles for pedagogy. The approach aims to develop critical competence through situated learning, addressing challenges to approximating an ideal of rational discourse and norm-guided learning. Practice competence is defined as the capacity to construct knowledge through resolving empirical or moral problems.
An Argument Analysis Contribution To Interpretive Public Policy AnalysisKate Campbell
This document discusses interpretive policy analysis and argument analysis as a methodology. It begins by outlining some challenges students face in applying interpretive perspectives, such as a lack of accessible integrated methodology.
It then summarizes approaches to interpretive policy analysis from Yanow and Hansen, focusing on identifying interpretive communities, meaning-laden artifacts, and systems of meanings. Argument analysis is presented as an approach that can help operationalize interpretive analysis while being accessible to students.
The document outlines how argument analysis builds on the Scriven and Toulmin formats, modifying them into more user-friendly work formats. It argues this approach fulfills two functions - inculcating an investigative reading style and providing a framework
The document presents a holistic model of language that incorporates four main theories: formal, functional, systemic, and relativistic models. It argues that considering language from only one of these angles provides an incomplete picture. The proposed holistic model incorporates insights from all four theories and suggests that excluding any single theory would render the model incomplete. The document reviews the key aspects and components of each theory and proposes that taking a multi-angled perspective that includes formalism, functionalism, systemic approaches, and relativism can lead to a more integrated understanding of language.
The document defines and discusses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). It outlines that CDA examines how power, dominance and inequality are reproduced within social contexts through written and spoken language. The document also discusses three main models of CDA: Norman Fairclough's Dialectal-Relational Approach which analyzes texts, processes and social conditions; Teun van Dijk's Socio-Cognitive Approach which focuses on cognition, discourse and society; and Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach developed with the Frankfurt School to research topics like sexism and racism.
This document provides an overview of discourse analysis and discursive psychology. It defines discourse as situated language use that constructs social worlds and identities. It discusses three strands of discursive psychology: a poststructuralist perspective, an interactionist perspective, and a synthetic perspective that combines the two. The document also outlines seven stages of discursive research: obtaining access and consent, data collection, data management, transcription, developing research questions, analysis, and validation. Throughout, it emphasizes discourse as action-oriented, situated language use.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how power, dominance, inequality and bias are maintained and reproduced within social contexts through discourse. There are three main models of CDA: Norman Fairclough's Dialectal-Relational Approach analyzes texts, production/interpretation processes, and social conditions in three stages; Teun van Dijk's Socio-Cognitive Approach focuses on the interaction between cognition, discourse and society; Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach developed in the Frankfurt School tradition, aims for practical applications through large interdisciplinary research projects.
Argumentative text as rhetorical structure An application of rhetorical stru...Cynthia Velynne
This document discusses analyzing argumentative texts using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). It argues that five of RST's rhetorical relations - Evidence, Motivation, Justify, Antithesis, and Concession - can be considered types of argument relations. These relations involve a part that provides an argument to support a conclusion. The document aims to clarify the concept of an argument relation and demonstrate how RST can be useful for identifying and analyzing argumentative texts versus explanatory texts. It provides definitions and examples to illustrate how RST can analyze the structure and intentions of argumentative texts.
This document provides an overview of critical discourse analysis (CDA). It defines CDA as the study of written and spoken language use to reveal social sources of power and inequality. The document outlines the theoretical origins of CDA in Western Marxism and discusses three major models: Fairclough's dialectical-relational approach examines texts, processes of production/interpretation, and social conditions; Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach analyzes the interaction of cognition, discourse and society; and Wodak's discourse-historical approach developed in the traditions of sociolinguistics and Frankfurt School to research topics like sexism and racism.
A Contrastive Study Of Hedging In Environmental Sciences Research ArticlesAnita Miller
This document summarizes a study that compares the frequency and types of hedges used in the Discussion sections of research articles in Environmental Sciences. The study analyzed 60 research articles written in English by English researchers, Iranian researchers writing in English, and Iranian researchers writing in Farsi. The study found no significant differences in hedge use between English and Iranian authors writing in English. However, it did find significant differences between English and Farsi written articles, which may be due to differences in how certainty is expressed in Farsi versus international academic discourse norms. The study used Salager-Meyer's taxonomy to analyze hedges.
Introduction Of Report Writing 23 Problem AnalJames Heller
The document discusses the steps to get writing help from HelpWriting.net:
1. Create an account with a password and email.
2. Complete a 10-minute order form providing instructions, sources, and deadline.
3. Writers will bid on the request and the client can choose a writer based on qualifications.
4. The client receives the paper and can request revisions to ensure satisfaction. HelpWriting.net guarantees original, high-quality work or a full refund.
How Cheap Essay Writing Services Can Get You A DistinctionJames Heller
1. The document discusses how cheap essay writing services can help students get good grades. It outlines a 5-step process for using such services: registering, submitting a request, reviewing bids from writers, revising the paper if needed, and requesting revisions until satisfied.
2. It promises original, high-quality papers and refunds for plagiarized work. Students can use these services confidently to get their needs fully met.
3. The document promotes a cheap essay writing service by claiming it can help students earn distinctions through its 5-step process of submitting requests, reviewing writer bids, revising papers as needed, and requesting revisions until the student is satisfied.
More Related Content
Similar to A Pragma-Dialectical Approach To Argumentative Discourse
Pragmatics and discourse analysis are closely related fields that both study language in use and context-dependent aspects of language. While they overlap considerably, pragmatics focuses more on utterances and speech acts, and recovering a speaker's intended meaning based on context. Discourse analysis examines longer stretches of language and how units are combined. Discourse pragmatics represents the intersection between the two fields. Key differences are that pragmatics considers context as dynamic while discourse analysis views it as more static, and pragmatics emphasizes inferring a speaker's intention across contexts. Both fields have evolved over time with different approaches emerging.
Discourse analysis and pragmatics are interrelated fields that both study language in use and context. Discourse analysis examines language beyond the sentence level and how linguistic units are connected into coherent wholes. It considers local speech acts and their connections as well as global structures. Pragmatics analyzes speaker meaning and how context helps interpret utterances. Both fields consider context, text, and function. While pragmatics focuses more on speaker intention, discourse analysis examines how stretches of language are structured together. Discourse pragmatics bridges the two fields by studying speech acts in texts and series.
Manipulation and cognitive pragmatics. Preliminary hypothesesLouis de Saussure
de Saussure Louis (2005). Manipulation and Cognitive Pragmatics: Preliminary
Hypotheses. In de Saussure Louis & Peter Schulz (Eds), Manipulation and Ideologies
in the Twentieth Century: Discourse, Language, Mind, Amsterdam-Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 113-146.
Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 17
Uncorrected first proofs. Please refer to original text.
Academic Voices And Claims Reviewing Practices In Research WritingCharlie Congdon
This document summarizes a research paper that analyzes how politeness strategies involving reporting verbs are used in literature review chapters of English and Spanish PhD theses in computer science. It examines how writers establish their voice and attribute voices to other authors through citations and reporting verbs. The research compares 10 theses written in English at the University of Glasgow to 10 written in Spanish at the Polytechnic University of Valencia. It finds that English writers show more tentativeness and personal commitment, while Spanish writers tend to mask individual voices and avoid confrontation.
Argument Schemes Typologies In Practice The Case Of Comparative ArgumentsKimberly Pulley
This document discusses the classification of comparative arguments in academic literature and actual argumentative practices. It identifies four main parameters used to categorize comparative arguments in theoretical works: 1) whether the comparison involves cases from the same or different domains, 2) whether the comparison is qualitative or quantitative, 3) the epistemic status of the compared cases, and 4) whether the argument is used in a positive or negative/refutative way. The document then examines how these theoretical categories compare to the spontaneous perceptions and discussions of comparative arguments in real-world argumentative practices.
This document presents a semantic theory of word classes based on conceptual spaces. It argues that word classes can be given a cognitive grounding using this framework. Specifically:
- Nouns typically refer to concepts represented in multiple domains, capturing information about an object's color, shape, texture, etc. Nouns represent object categories.
- Adjectives typically refer to a single domain and represent properties like color or size. They denote convex regions within a domain.
- The theory aims to develop semantic models constructed from general cognitive mechanisms, not dependent on syntactic categories. It uses conceptual spaces to provide a cognitive analysis of the major word classes.
Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama's 2012 Speeches: Views from Syste...Bahram Kazemian
In the light of Halliday's Ideational Grammatical Metaphor, Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis, the major objectives of this study are to investigate and analyze Barack Obama's 2012 five speeches, which amount to 19383 words, from the point of frequency and functions of Nominalization, Rhetorical strategies, Passivization and Modality, in which we can grasp the effective and dominant principles and tropes utilized in political discourse. Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis frameworks based on a Hallidayan perspective are used to depict the orator’s deft and clever use of these strategies in the speeches which are bound up with his overall political purposes. The results represent that nominalization, parallelism, unification strategies and modality have dominated in his speeches. There are some antithesis, expletive devices as well as passive voices in these texts. Accordingly, in terms of nominalization, some implications are drawn for political writing and reading, for translators and instructors entailed in reading and writing pedagogy.
Discourse analysis examines language use beyond the sentence level and how language is used in social contexts, while text analysis focuses on formal linguistic cohesive devices within written texts. Some researchers use the terms interchangeably, but most agree the distinction is unclear. Discourse analysis is broader in investigating language in use with consideration of context, while text analysis concentrates on linguistic features linking sentences. The field would benefit from abandoning the term "text" in favor of discourse analysis to avoid confusion.
An Investigation of the Reading Text ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ (Long Live Pakistan)...Bahram Kazemian
This paper is a critical study in Critical Discourse Analysis paradigm of a Textbook prescribed for intermediate students (Second Language Learners) in Government Colleges affiliated to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE) Larkana, Sindh, Pakistan. The textbook contains selected texts to improve students reading skills integrated with writing activities. Each of the texts contains questions at the end to be answered. It is observed that the reading tasks are badly designed and there is no mental activity to involve students in the text discourse. The study focuses on critical discourse of the underlying text to inspect whether the text reading involves students in the critical discourse or not; it also attempts to analyze the Reading Text ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ to identify problems showing the gap and unawareness on the part of teachers and students regarding the critical discourse of the text in classroom reading context. It is also suggested that teachers need to bring about a change in their traditional teaching methods in order to tackle the issue. The awareness of critical discourse analysis is recommended on the part of the teachers in order to analyze and understand the real meaning of the text. In result, it may develop the critical approach which is very essential for a reader.
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-LinguistsDominik Lukes
The document provides an overview of discourse analysis, including:
1) Defining discourse and the different approaches to discourse analysis.
2) Outlining some of the key concepts in discourse analysis like semiotics, meaning, and how discourse works.
3) Discussing the tools and techniques used in discourse analysis like conceptual frameworks, close reading, and quantitative analysis methods.
4) Critiquing the use of discourse analysis in education and providing guidance on when it may or may not be appropriate.
The document summarizes several theories and traditions related to communication and interpretation:
- The semiotic tradition examines the structure and organization of messages. Semiotics of language studies how language is influenced by and influences semiotics.
- The phenomenological tradition studies structures of consciousness from a first-person perspective, focusing on intentionality and how experiences are directed at objects.
- Reader-response theory (Stanley Fish) focuses on the reader's experience rather than the author/work, and how each reader creates their own unique interpretation.
- The rhetorical tradition explores the inherent connection between rhetoric and human experience, and how rhetoric impacts views of politics, ethics, and life.
- New rhetoric (Perel
The document discusses a discursive approach to training professional community educators. It draws on theories of Habermas around communicative action and validity claims to develop principles for pedagogy. The approach aims to develop critical competence through situated learning, addressing challenges to approximating an ideal of rational discourse and norm-guided learning. Practice competence is defined as the capacity to construct knowledge through resolving empirical or moral problems.
An Argument Analysis Contribution To Interpretive Public Policy AnalysisKate Campbell
This document discusses interpretive policy analysis and argument analysis as a methodology. It begins by outlining some challenges students face in applying interpretive perspectives, such as a lack of accessible integrated methodology.
It then summarizes approaches to interpretive policy analysis from Yanow and Hansen, focusing on identifying interpretive communities, meaning-laden artifacts, and systems of meanings. Argument analysis is presented as an approach that can help operationalize interpretive analysis while being accessible to students.
The document outlines how argument analysis builds on the Scriven and Toulmin formats, modifying them into more user-friendly work formats. It argues this approach fulfills two functions - inculcating an investigative reading style and providing a framework
The document presents a holistic model of language that incorporates four main theories: formal, functional, systemic, and relativistic models. It argues that considering language from only one of these angles provides an incomplete picture. The proposed holistic model incorporates insights from all four theories and suggests that excluding any single theory would render the model incomplete. The document reviews the key aspects and components of each theory and proposes that taking a multi-angled perspective that includes formalism, functionalism, systemic approaches, and relativism can lead to a more integrated understanding of language.
The document defines and discusses Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). It outlines that CDA examines how power, dominance and inequality are reproduced within social contexts through written and spoken language. The document also discusses three main models of CDA: Norman Fairclough's Dialectal-Relational Approach which analyzes texts, processes and social conditions; Teun van Dijk's Socio-Cognitive Approach which focuses on cognition, discourse and society; and Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach developed with the Frankfurt School to research topics like sexism and racism.
This document provides an overview of discourse analysis and discursive psychology. It defines discourse as situated language use that constructs social worlds and identities. It discusses three strands of discursive psychology: a poststructuralist perspective, an interactionist perspective, and a synthetic perspective that combines the two. The document also outlines seven stages of discursive research: obtaining access and consent, data collection, data management, transcription, developing research questions, analysis, and validation. Throughout, it emphasizes discourse as action-oriented, situated language use.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how power, dominance, inequality and bias are maintained and reproduced within social contexts through discourse. There are three main models of CDA: Norman Fairclough's Dialectal-Relational Approach analyzes texts, production/interpretation processes, and social conditions in three stages; Teun van Dijk's Socio-Cognitive Approach focuses on the interaction between cognition, discourse and society; Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach developed in the Frankfurt School tradition, aims for practical applications through large interdisciplinary research projects.
Argumentative text as rhetorical structure An application of rhetorical stru...Cynthia Velynne
This document discusses analyzing argumentative texts using Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). It argues that five of RST's rhetorical relations - Evidence, Motivation, Justify, Antithesis, and Concession - can be considered types of argument relations. These relations involve a part that provides an argument to support a conclusion. The document aims to clarify the concept of an argument relation and demonstrate how RST can be useful for identifying and analyzing argumentative texts versus explanatory texts. It provides definitions and examples to illustrate how RST can analyze the structure and intentions of argumentative texts.
This document provides an overview of critical discourse analysis (CDA). It defines CDA as the study of written and spoken language use to reveal social sources of power and inequality. The document outlines the theoretical origins of CDA in Western Marxism and discusses three major models: Fairclough's dialectical-relational approach examines texts, processes of production/interpretation, and social conditions; Van Dijk's socio-cognitive approach analyzes the interaction of cognition, discourse and society; and Wodak's discourse-historical approach developed in the traditions of sociolinguistics and Frankfurt School to research topics like sexism and racism.
A Contrastive Study Of Hedging In Environmental Sciences Research ArticlesAnita Miller
This document summarizes a study that compares the frequency and types of hedges used in the Discussion sections of research articles in Environmental Sciences. The study analyzed 60 research articles written in English by English researchers, Iranian researchers writing in English, and Iranian researchers writing in Farsi. The study found no significant differences in hedge use between English and Iranian authors writing in English. However, it did find significant differences between English and Farsi written articles, which may be due to differences in how certainty is expressed in Farsi versus international academic discourse norms. The study used Salager-Meyer's taxonomy to analyze hedges.
Similar to A Pragma-Dialectical Approach To Argumentative Discourse (20)
Introduction Of Report Writing 23 Problem AnalJames Heller
The document discusses the steps to get writing help from HelpWriting.net:
1. Create an account with a password and email.
2. Complete a 10-minute order form providing instructions, sources, and deadline.
3. Writers will bid on the request and the client can choose a writer based on qualifications.
4. The client receives the paper and can request revisions to ensure satisfaction. HelpWriting.net guarantees original, high-quality work or a full refund.
How Cheap Essay Writing Services Can Get You A DistinctionJames Heller
1. The document discusses how cheap essay writing services can help students get good grades. It outlines a 5-step process for using such services: registering, submitting a request, reviewing bids from writers, revising the paper if needed, and requesting revisions until satisfied.
2. It promises original, high-quality papers and refunds for plagiarized work. Students can use these services confidently to get their needs fully met.
3. The document promotes a cheap essay writing service by claiming it can help students earn distinctions through its 5-step process of submitting requests, reviewing writer bids, revising papers as needed, and requesting revisions until the student is satisfied.
How To Write Good Paragraph TransitionsJames Heller
The document provides guidance on analyzing the concept of "a calling" to nursing. It uses Walker and Avant's classic concept analysis steps to develop a definition. Literature from various disciplines is reviewed to understand the concept. The analysis establishes three defining attributes: a passionate intrinsic motivation to help others through caregiving, fulfillment of an aspiration for work to provide meaningfulness, and helping others through caregiving. Antecedents include personal introspection. Positive consequences are improved work engagement and satisfaction, while negative consequences could include sacrifice of wellbeing and work-life imbalance.
How To Write A Career Development Essay - AherJames Heller
The document discusses how to write a career development essay. It outlines 5 steps: 1) Create an account on the site, 2) Complete an order form providing instructions and deadline, 3) Review bids from writers and choose one, 4) Review the completed paper and authorize payment, 5) Request revisions until satisfied. The process aims to provide original, high-quality content while allowing the customer to ensure their needs and expectations are met.
Political Science Research Paper Example How TheJames Heller
Here is a brief SWOT analysis of Tiffany & Co.:
Strengths:
- Strong brand recognition and reputation for high-quality luxury jewelry and accessories
- Iconic blue box packaging enhances the luxury experience
- Global presence with stores in major cities worldwide
- Diversified product portfolio including jewelry, watches, home goods, etc.
Weaknesses:
- Reliance on discretionary consumer spending makes it vulnerable to economic downturns
- Higher price points limit addressable market
- Faces competition from other luxury brands
Opportunities:
- Expand into new product categories like engagement rings and diamond jewelry
- Further develop e-commerce and digital capabilities
- Increase presence in emerging
How To Write A 5 Paragraph Essay 6Th Graders - AderJames Heller
The document provides instructions for creating an account on HelpWriting.net in order to request that a writer complete an assignment. It outlines the 5 step process: 1) Create an account with a password and email, 2) Complete an order form with instructions and deadline, 3) Review bids from writers and select one, 4) Receive the paper and authorize payment if pleased, 5) Request revisions until satisfied. The purpose is to outline how to obtain writing help from the site.
The document discusses the steps to get writing help from the website HelpWriting.net. It involves creating an account, completing an order form with instructions and deadlines, and choosing a writer to complete the assignment. Writers bid on requests and the customer can choose based on qualifications. The customer receives the paper and can request revisions until satisfied. The website promises original, high-quality work with refunds for plagiarism.
Water Theme Art Wide Ruled Line Paper - Walmart.Com - WaJames Heller
This document discusses key factors to consider when contemplating organizational change. It outlines who might initiate change as a change agent and how to determine what should be changed. It also addresses the different types of change, how individuals may be affected, and how to evaluate change outcomes. People-focused change aims to modify attitudes, skills, and other human aspects through organization development techniques like grid organizational development. Reducing typical employee resistance also increases the likelihood of support for change initiatives.
How To Write A Personal Narrative A Step-By-StepJames Heller
The document discusses several symbols of early Christianity during the Roman era. It notes that the cross is the most recognized Christian symbol, representing the instrument of Jesus' salvation. Other symbols included the ichthys/Jesus fish, representing Jesus, and the chi-rho symbol combining the first two letters of "Christ" in Greek. These symbols helped early Christians identify each other and proclaim their faith despite persecution by Romans.
Technology Essay Writing This Is An Ielts Writing Task 2 SamplJames Heller
This document discusses potential topics for a senior management retreat for a shoe company. It identifies topics based on a review of the company's business practices and focus groups with employees. Key topics identified include improving employee training, addressing career advancement opportunities, and implementing more socially responsible business practices. The agenda is aimed at improving employee productivity, commitment and job satisfaction to increase revenue and market competitiveness.
How To Write A Film Essay. Critical Film Analysis EssaJames Heller
The document provides instructions for how to request and complete an assignment writing request through the HelpWriting.net website, including registering for an account, submitting a request form with instructions and deadline, reviewing writer bids and placing an order, reviewing and authorizing payment for completed work that meets expectations, and utilizing revisions if needed. The process aims to ensure high-quality, original content is provided to meet customer needs and satisfaction is guaranteed through refunds if work is plagiarized.
Introduction - How To Write An Essay - LibGuides At UJames Heller
Here are a few examples of racism that still exist in America today:
- Racial profiling by law enforcement. Studies have shown that black and Latino people are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested and sentenced harshly than white people, even when accounting for non-racial factors. This disproportionate treatment by police and the criminal justice system undermines trust between communities of color and law enforcement.
- Residential segregation and lack of affordable housing in non-minority neighborhoods. Real estate practices and policies have historically pushed people of color into segregated, under-resourced communities with less access to good schools, jobs, transportation and amenities. The effects of this systemic housing discrimination linger today.
- Employment
The document discusses the dangers of internet predators and provides tips to stay safe online. It notes that while the internet can be used for research, many also use it for chatting, which can expose users, especially young people, to deception from those pretending to be someone they're not. It recommends not giving out personal details or photos and warns that anyone met online should not be met in person, as there is no way to verify their real identity. Caution is advised when interacting with others on the internet.
The document provides instructions for how to request and obtain writing assistance from HelpWriting.net. It outlines a 5-step process: 1) Create an account with a password and email. 2) Complete a 10-minute order form providing instructions, sources, and deadline. 3) Review bids from writers and choose one based on qualifications. 4) Receive the paper and authorize payment if satisfied. 5) Request revisions to ensure satisfaction, with the option of a full refund for plagiarized work. The document promises original, high-quality content.
Pay Someone To Do A Research Paper - Pay ForJames Heller
The document discusses attachment behavioral systems in children and their parents. It explains that secure children are comfortable exploring their environment but become distressed during separation from their parents, being quickly soothed upon reunion. Anxious-ambivalent and disorganized children experience high anxiety during separation and strongly seek closeness to their parents upon reunion. The document examines how children's attachment behaviors develop based on their interactions and relationships with their parents or caregivers from a young age.
The passage discusses the pros and cons of the theory of evolution. It acknowledges that while serious scientific publications disputing evolution are rare, the sheer number and diversity of claims challenging evolution can make it difficult for even well-informed people. One of the strongest arguments against evolution is irreducible complexity, which says that living things have complex anatomical, cellular, and molecular features that could not function if they were any less intricate. However, the passage does not provide any counterarguments to address this concern raised by opponents of evolution.
1. The document discusses reflective report examples and outlines the steps to get writing assistance from HelpWriting.net.
2. The steps include creating an account, completing an order form with instructions and deadline, and reviewing writer bids before choosing a writer and placing a deposit.
3. Once the paper is received, the customer can request revisions until satisfied, and HelpWriting.net offers refunds for plagiarized work.
I apologize, upon further reflection I do not feel comfortable providing a definitive answer to this question without proper context or attribution. Different societies prioritize proximate factors in different ways based on their specific circumstances and values.
Importance Of Environment Essay. Essay On EnvironmJames Heller
The document provides instructions for creating an account and requesting writing assistance from HelpWriting.net. It involves a 5-step process: 1) Create an account with a password and email, 2) Complete an order form with instructions, sources, and deadline, 3) Review bids from writers and choose one, 4) Review the completed paper and authorize payment, 5) Request revisions until satisfied. The process aims to match clients with qualified writers to meet their writing needs.
Best Film Analysis Essay Examples PNG - ScholarshipJames Heller
This document provides instructions for how to request and receive writing assistance from the website HelpWriting.net. It outlines a 5-step process: 1) Create an account with a password and email. 2) Complete an order form with instructions, sources, and deadline. 3) Review bids from writers and choose one. 4) Review the completed paper and authorize payment. 5) Request revisions until satisfied, with a refund option for plagiarized work. The purpose is to guide users through obtaining custom writing help from the site.
Gender and Mental Health - Counselling and Family Therapy Applications and In...PsychoTech Services
A proprietary approach developed by bringing together the best of learning theories from Psychology, design principles from the world of visualization, and pedagogical methods from over a decade of training experience, that enables you to: Learn better, faster!
Philippine Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) CurriculumMJDuyan
(𝐓𝐋𝐄 𝟏𝟎𝟎) (𝐋𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝟏)-𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐬
𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐮𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐏𝐏 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐮𝐦 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬:
- Understand the goals and objectives of the Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan (EPP) curriculum, recognizing its importance in fostering practical life skills and values among students. Students will also be able to identify the key components and subjects covered, such as agriculture, home economics, industrial arts, and information and communication technology.
𝐄𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐄𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐫:
-Define entrepreneurship, distinguishing it from general business activities by emphasizing its focus on innovation, risk-taking, and value creation. Students will describe the characteristics and traits of successful entrepreneurs, including their roles and responsibilities, and discuss the broader economic and social impacts of entrepreneurial activities on both local and global scales.
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
A Pragma-Dialectical Approach To Argumentative Discourse
1. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Volume 19, Number 4, 2016
20
A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative
Discourse
Touria Drid
Kasdi Merbah University, Algeria
1. Introduction
The examination of argumentative discourse is the exploration of a very knotty
type of communication. Dating back to Greek times, the study of argumentation
has been approached from divergent angles over centuries. Colliding outlooks that
stem from the ancient disciplines of logic, rhetoric and dialectic have been held,
but theoretical affinities and mutual influences between the various perspectives in
the field have also been detected. The modern theory of argumentation has under-
gone marked developments in a variety of directions, which have turned it into one
of the most heterogeneous scholarly fields. Pragma-dialectics is an approach to
argumentation initiated by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in the 1970s
at the Speech Communication Department of the University of Amsterdam. It has
gained ground among the most recent and popular multidisciplinary approaches to
argumentative discourse. The model is distinguished by a set of theoretical
assumptions regarding the nature of argument which are translated into procedural
tools to analyse this kind of discourse. It has been applied to the examination of a
variety of spoken and written argumentative genres, yielding practical outcomes.
2. General Orientation of Pragma-dialectics
In the literature, an important distinction in approaching argumentative discourse is
drawn between the descriptive movement and the normative (or critical) one. The
paragma-dialectical theory pursues a binary perspective which unites normativity
and description as regards its object of study. Descriptivists advocate an empirical
examination of the real use of language. Van Eemeren et al. (1993) elucidate that it
is the practice of linguists to favour empirical investigation of discourse as a
sample of actual verbal communicative experience. It is optimal for them to be
impartial towards the data under examination, and this is considered a basic
2. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 21
building block of linguistic science. They also clarify that humanistic research,
such as in modern logic and rhetoric, is normative, for it takes an evaluative
attitude as regards argumentative practice. It tries to evaluate the way people argue.
Formal logicians, for example, opt for an idealised investigation, namely, assessing
argumentative language by reference to some pre-established norms of
reasonableness. This perspective is not so much concerned with how people
actually do argue as much as with how they should argue. The research programme
which underlies the pragma-dialectical approach brings together the
methodological poles of linguists and logicians by reconciling their empirical and
regimental tendencies without undermining the essence of each, as van Eemeren, et
al. (1993) put it, “We believe this integration can occur without reducing normative
principles for reasonable discussion to anthropologically relative characterisations,
and likewise without prefiguring the categories and principles of descriptive
inquiry in a way that makes them immune to empirical disconfirmation” (pp. 1-2).
Van Eemeren et al. (1996) argue that the two perspectives are apparently separate,
but combining them constitutes an interesting outlook on which they establish their
own theory of pragma-dialectics.
Like any approach to an already established area of investigation with a respectable
history, pragma-dialectics handles argumentative discourse in interdisciplinary
terms, aiming at its improvement. On the one hand, pragma-dialectics gives
argumentation a pragmatic account by considering it from a speech act perspective.
It is built partly on the Speech Act Theory. On the other hand, the procedural
dialectical conceptualisation of argument, as opposed to the logical or rhetorical
ones (Wenzel, 1992), gives the approach its normative orientation. This integration
of insights gives the theory its actual shape and locates it in area that can safely be
dubbed normative pragmatics. Pragma-dialecticians hold that unilateral approaches
do not do justice to argumentative discourse. That is, adopting either a
“descriptive” orientation or a “normative” one seems to be a partial treatment of
the subject. Thus, they call for a comprehensive research programme which fuses
these apparently irreconcilable outlooks in one model. Normative pragmatics has
been expounded on at length in the basic literature on the subject (van Eemeren,
1992; van Eemeren et al., 1993; van Eemeren et al., 1996; van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 1992; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004).
3. Meta-Theoretical Principles of Pragma-Dialectics
The initiators of pragma-dialectics construe it as the outcome of a whole research
programme, which concretizes their general normative-descriptive orientation and
3. 22 Touria Drid
which consists of a number of interrelated components. Van Eemeren (1992), and
van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) distinguish five “estates” in the study of
argumentation. They argue that a research programme that would account satis-
factorily for argumentation with regard to its nature is the one that endeavours to
unite methodically various realms considering them as interdependent parts. The
five realms are (1) the philosophical estate, (2) the theoretical estate, (3) the
analytical (or reconstruction) estate, (4) the empirical estate and (5) the practical
estate. Also, they formulate four starting points for their approach to realize the
objectives of the general programme. The four meta-theoretical principles, as
developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984), aim at handling argumen-
tation more adequately. This embraces the externalisation, functionalisation,
socialisation and dialectification of the object of study.
The principle of externalisation, as explained in van Eemerenet al. (1996), states
that argumentation is not an internal frame of mind or a psychological tendency,
nor is it an abstracted personal chain of reasoning that starts from a set of premises
leading logically to a conclusion. Pragma-dialecticians hold that the study of
argumentation does not involve speculation on interior predispositions, even if they
do contain potential mismatched views. It is rather concerned with what is said
actually by a speaker in terms of implicit or explicit speech acts. The verbally
expressed disparity of views, the commitments undertaken when performing
argumentative speech acts in a given context and the resulting consequences form a
focal object of study. It is stressed that a speaker is only held responsible for an
argumentative position when the latter is publicly projected in discourse.
Externalisation then shifts the investigation of argumentation from the
philosophical sphere to a more objective sphere. By adopting this principle,
pragma-dialectics satisfies the linguistic descriptive requirement as regards its
object of study since it deals with the observable, actual utterances rather than mere
speculations, intentions or other non-empirical constructs. This allows the analyst
to make use of experimental tools when dealing with argumentation, hence
positioning pragma-dialectics itself within the highly non-speculative approaches.
The principle of functionalisation states that argumentation should not be thought
of as an isolated product, but rather as an ongoing verbal process closely bound to
its context (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984). The utterances that compose
argumentative discourse are regarded as purposive bits of language whose
performance relates to precise conditions and whose ultimate function is the
resolution of disagreement:
Our view departs from a strictly structural view of argument by
emphasizing the function of argument in managing the resolution
4. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 23
of disagreements. An emphasis on the functions of argumentation
and on the interactional processes within which it occurs, allows
us to describe and to evaluate argumentation according to its
purposes. (Van Eemeren et al., 1993, p. 13)
Functionalisation is thus to stress the purpose for which argumentative utterances
are performed in the process of communication by treating them as speech acts
which are performed in the context of a resolving a difference of opinion.
The principle of socialisation accentuates the interactional dialogic nature of
argumentation. Starting from the perspective that argumentation aims at convincing
another party of the acceptability of a standpoint, the monologic treatment of the
subject of study seems to be defective. Socialisation is fulfilled if the utterances
produced by speakers are handled as segments of a dialogue between two or more
parties, who presupposedly hold opposing roles: that of a protagonist and that of a
real or anticipated antagonist. The two parties attempt jointly to resolve a
divergence of viewpoints. Van Eemeren, Grootendorst, Snoeck Henkemans, et al.
(1993), in this connection, state:
[Argumentation] is part of a procedure whereby two or more
individuals who have a difference of opinion try to arrive at
agreement ... It reflects the collaboration in which the protagonist
in the fundamentally dialogical interaction responds to the _real
or projected_ questions, doubts, objections and counterclaims of
the antagonist. (p.277)
By locating the verbal productions of the participants in such an interactional
context, it would be possible to specify the real meanings of their speech acts on
the basis of their roles in the interaction. On account of this, it seems more
adequate in pragma-dialectics to study argumentation as an outcome of a
surrounding social context.
The principle of dialectification assesses argumentative language in terms of some
pre-established norms of a critical discussion whose aim is to resolve a disparity of
opinion. These rules form a procedure that determines which speech acts play a
productive role for the resolution to be achieved. Therefore, the discussion taking
place is designated as a “regimented” discussion (van Eemeren & Grootendorst,
2004). This gives pragma-dialectics its normative orientation and represents the
theoretical foundation on which the ideal model of a critical discussion, as
elaborated by the theorists of this approach, is built. It is against this model that
actual argumentative practice is evaluated. It is important to note, as van Eemeren
and Grootendorst (1992) argue, that a critical discussion can be explicit or implicit.
5. 24 Touria Drid
When it is implicit, the speaker or writer envisages the way a standpoint might be
received by a doubtful listener or reader and hence projects arguments to remove
such anticipated doubts.
Taken together, the four principles of externalisation, functionalisation,
socialisation and dialectification constitute a sound basis in the light of which the
following cardinal definition of argumentation in the pragma-dialectical approach
is suggested:
Argumentation is a speech act consisting of a constellation of
statements designed to justify or refute an expressed opinion and
calculated in a regimented discussion to convince a rational judge of
a particular standpoint of the acceptability or unacceptability of that
expressed opinion. (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1984, p. 18)
This definition summarises the four pillars of the pragma-dialectical
conceptualisation of argumentation. First, it regards it as a speech act, in line with
the functionalisation and externalisation principles. Also, it displays its dialogic
nature, in line with the socialisation principle by recognising that there is a second
party to whom argumentation is addressed. What is more, it conceives of argument
as part of a regimented discussion, thus conforming to the dialectification principle.
All in all, the four meta-theoretical principles are outlined to fix the central
methodological pathways which the whole approach follows.
4. Applying Speech Act Theory to Argumentation
The pragmatic aspect of pragma-dialectics unfolds in its treatment of
argumentation within the framework of the speech act theory, as laid down by
Austin (1962) and developed later by Searle (1969, 1975a and 1975b) but with
some adaptation. This is attained through considering the argumentative moves of
argumentation as speech acts. It is therefore necessary to give paramount
importance to the performance of these moves, the effects this performance has on
the listener and the conditions under which it takes place. Van Eemeren and
Grootendorst (1984) give a thorough discussion of how speech act theory is applied
to the analysis of argumentative discourse. The whole paradigm is embedded
within a postulated framework called the “ideal model of a critical discussion”.
6. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 25
4.1. The Conceptualisation of Argumentation in Pragma-dialectics
Pragma-dialecticians endeavour to offer a clear-cut definition to the argumentation
seen as a speech act. In line with Austin’s and Searle’s outlooks, argumentation is
regarded as an illocutionary act connected to the perlocutionary act of convincing,
but because of some observed problems in the earlier speech act models, notably
their restrictedness only to sentences with explicit illocutionary force and the one-
to-one relationship between isolated sentences and illocutions, the notion
compound illocution, or illocutionary act complex has been introduced:
We believe that argumentation can be treated as an illocutionary
act complex. This act complex is composed of elementary
illocutions which belong to the category of assertives and which
at sentence level maintain a one-to-one ratio with (grammatical)
sentences. The total constellation of the elementary illocutions
constitutes the illocutionary act complex of argumentation, which
at a higher textual level maintains, as a single whole, a one-to-one
ratio with a (grammatical) sentence sequence. (Van Eemeren &
Grootendorst, 1992, p.34)
In this perspective, argumentation is construed as an illocutionary act related to a
whole piece of discourse rather than a single sentence. The component parts belong
to the category Searle (1975a) calls assertives. Taken together, however, they
jointly have the communicative function of arguing and may lead to the
interactional consequence of convincing. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992)
enumerate other differences between the speech act of argumentation and
“elementary” speech acts, such as asserting, requesting, promising . . . on the one
hand, and other complex speech acts, such as amplifying, elucidating and
explaining on the other.
A further borrowing from the speech act theory appears in specifying the felicity
conditions under which the performance of the speech act complex of
argumentation is believed to be successful, as shown in Table 1. Pragma-
dialecticians take as a starting point the fact that a speaker S has addressed to a
listener L numerous statements which belong to the category of the assertives and
which collectively form a constellation of statements (S1, S2,…Sn) that acts as pro-
argumentation or contra-argumentation for an expressed opinion O.
7. 26 Touria Drid
Table 1
Felicity Conditions of the Speech Act Complex of Argumentation
Condition Pro-argumentation Contra-argumentation
1. The
Propositional
Content Condition
The constellation of statements
S1, S2 (. . . Sn) consists of
assertives in which
propositions are expressed.
"
2. The Essential
Condition
Advancing the constellation of
statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn)
counts as an attempt by S to
justify O to L's satisfaction, i.e.
to convince L of the
acceptability of O.
Advancing the constellation of
statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn) counts as
an attempt by S to refute O to L's
satisfaction, i.e. to convince L of
the unacceptability of O.
3. Preparatory
Condition
1. S believes that L does not (in
advance, completely,
automatically) accept the
expressed opinion O.
2. S believes L will accept the
propositions expressed in the
statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn)
3. S believes that L will accept
the constellation of statements
S1, S2 (. . . Sn) as a justification
of O.
1. S believes that L (for the time
being, in whole or in part, more or
less) accepts the expressed
opinion O.
2. S believes L will accept the
propositions expressed in the
statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn)
3. S believes that L will accept the
constellation of statements S1, S2
(.. . Sn) as a refutation of O.
4. Sincerity
Condition
1. S believes that O is
acceptable.
2. S believes that the
propositions expressed in the
statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn) are
acceptable.
3. S believes that the
constellation of statements S1,
S2 (. . . Sn) constitutes an
acceptable justification of O.
1. S believes that O is
unacceptable.
2. S believes that the propositions
expressed in the statements S1, S2
(. . . Sn) are acceptable.
3. S believes that the constellation
of statements S1, S2 (. . . Sn)
constitutes an acceptable
refutation of O.
Note. S = speaker; L = hearer; O = opinion; Sn = statement number n. Adapted
from Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, by F. van Eemeren, 1992.
4.2. The Model of a Critical Discussion
Argumentative discourse in pragma-dialectics has a dialectical nature in relation to
the dialectification principle. The participants are believed to be engaged in an
8. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 27
argumentative discussion in which the first party (the protagonist) defends a
standpoint and the second party (the antagonist) raises doubts against it. In the
course of this discussion, the former attempts to convince the latter of the
acceptability of their standpoints, while the latter keeps expressing their doubts or
objections to these standpoints (van Eemeren, Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans,
2002). An ideal model of a critical discussion is designed to provide a kind of
regimentation to the practice of argumentation. The quality of argumentative
exchanges is measured by reference to some standards of reasonableness extracted
from this model. Basically, the ideal model of a critical discussion indicates the
stages which interlocutors have to go through together with the relevant
argumentative moves (in terms of speech acts) which they have to perform at each
stage for the resolution of the dispute to be accomplished.
4.2.1. Dialectical Stages
Four dialectical stages can be distinguished in the process of resolving a difference
of opinion, which the participants in an argumentative exchange of views have to
pass through. These stages comply with the phases of a critical discussion. The first
phase is the confrontation stage. At this level a disparity of opinion arises by
advancing a standpoint and its being subjected to questioning or doubt. It is argued
that this stage is a prerequisite for a critical discussion to take place (van Eemeren
& Grootendorst, 2004). The second phase is the opening stage. It is at this juncture
that interlocutors assume roles of a protagonist and antagonist, hence allowing a
discussion to start, but without an ample common point of departure, a critical
exchange of views would not be meaningful, as van Eemerenet al. (1996) put it:
It only makes sense to undertake an attempt to eliminate a difference
of opinion by means of argumentation if such a starting point can be
established. If there is no opening for exchanging views, then having
a critical discussion is of no use. (p. 282)
The third stage is the argumentation stage. It is so called for it is the core of the
critical discussion: discussants advance arguments for and against a standpoint in a
critical manner for the purpose of resolving the difference of opinion. The way
arguments hang together may take various forms. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst
(2004) see that advancing and critically evaluating argumentation together form
necessary and inseparable building blocks of this phase. The fourth stage, the
concluding stage, is in essence the level at which the result of the discussion
unfolds by resolving a difference of opinion in favour of one of the parties: either
accepting the protagonist’s standpoint and withdrawing the antagonist’s doubts or
retracting the standpoint itself, which signals its unacceptability. In van Eemeren’s
9. 28 Touria Drid
terms, concluding a discussion is determining “who won”. At this point further
differences of opinion might emerge and new discussions might start, with slight or
radical modifications.
If one attempts to measure the degree to which the practice of argumentation
conforms to the postulated stages of the ideal model, one would certainly observe
the vast disparity between them. Van Eemeren (2015) in this respect, alleges“[the
ideal model] does not provide a true-to-life description of argumentative reality . . .
argumentative discourse rarely, if ever, corresponds exactly to the ideal model”
(p.491). The model is construed as having two crucial functions: a heuristic (or
analytic) function and a critical function. The heuristic function is to guide the
analyst in specifying and interpreting the aspects and elements needed for the
evaluation of argumentation. The critical function is to establish standards
according to which the speech acts constituting the exchange are judged as
conforming to or deviating from a procedure that is resolution oriented (van
Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992; van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004; van Eemeren,
Houtlosser & Snoeck Henkemans, 2007).
4.2.2. Speech Acts in a Critical Discussion
Starting from Searle’s (1975a) five-fold classification of speech acts into
assertives, declaratives, commissives, expressives and directives, an attempt is
made in pragma-dialectics to specify what speech acts do contribute to the
resolution of a dispute in a critical discussion at the different stages. Generally, van
Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984) see that the performance of speech acts by
language users engaged in a discussion is confined just to assertives, commissives
and directives, discarding declaratives and expressives in connection with what
each language user should “do” at each stage and the contribution of his move to
the resolution of the dispute. They also indicate that the only permissible
operations in the discussion are those of negation and repetition.
4.2.3. Rules of a Critical Discussion and Fallacies
The ideal model of a critical discussion, as explained above, permits language users
to undertake a critical discussion that is resolution oriented. Pragma-dialecticians
add that along the different stages of the discussion, language users have to comply
with a discussion procedure, the rules of which form a code of conduct. Any
argumentative move that transgresses the code of conduct is regarded as a fallacy,
using the traditional terminology. In what follows a brief account of the nature of
the rules suggested and their related fallacies is presented.
10. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 29
To start with, in Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions (1984), van Eemeren
and Grootendorst set a meticulous technical inventory of seventeen rules aimed at
guiding rational discussants in their endeavour to resolve the dispute at issue. In
this respect, they explain, “The rules we have formulated relate to the performance
of speech acts in argumentative discussions and indicate the conditions that the
usage of language users in a discussion has to meet in order to be able to contribute
to the resolution of a dispute” (p. 175). It appears here that the gist of the code of
conduct is the speech acts externalised by speakers and the directives governing
their performance by interlocutors to settle a disagreement. The rules of discussion
are meant to qualify language users to conduct themselves as rational discussants in
addition to deterring anything that could hinder the resolution process. Elsewhere,
the dialectical rules that represent a code of conduct are condensed in a simplified
version to ten basic principles, or the “ten commandments” of a critical discussion
(van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992; van Eemeren et al., 1996; van Eemeren,
Grootendorst & Snoeck Henkemans, 2002). They demonstrate how each one helps
the interlocutors to arrive at fixing a dispute. The ten fundamental rules of the code
of conduct are listed below:
RULE 1: (Freedom rule) Parties must not prevent each other from putting
forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.
RULE 2: (Burden-of-proof rule) A party who puts forward a standpoint is
obliged to defend it if asked to do so.
RULE 3: (Standpoint rule) A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to
the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.
RULE 4: (Relevance rule) A party may defend his or her standpoint only by
advancing argumentation related to that standpoint.
RULE 5: (Unexpressed premise rule) A party may not falsely present
something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other
party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit.
RULE 6: (Starting point rule) No party may falsely present a premise as an
accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted
starting point.
RULE 7:
(Argument Scheme rule) A standpoint may not be regarded as
conclusively defended if the defence does not take place by means
of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied.
RULE 8: (Validity rule) The reasoning in the argumentation must be
logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making
11. 30 Touria Drid
explicit one or more unexpressed premises.
RULE 9: (Closure rule) A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the
protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a
standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts.
RULE 10: (Usage rule) Parties must not use any formulations that are
insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must
interpret the formulations of the other party as carefully and
accurately as possible.
Although the rules sketched out above are held to be conductive to fixing a dispute,
pragma-dialecticians do assert that they are just necessary but by no means
satisfactory in practice. Other factors are deemed to contribute to the resolution
(van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004).
Setting rules for argumentative discussions is the initial step to enter the area of
fallacies in argumentation. By definition, a fallacy is a “deficient move” in
argumentative discourse (van Eemeren, 2001a). In the pragma-dialectical
framework, the deficiency of an argumentative move can only be determined if one
refers to the code of conduct suggested in the theory, being the touchstone against
which argumentative practice is evaluated. On this basis, a fallacy in this
perspective is a violation by one of the parties engaged in a discussion, at any of
the stages of the ideal model of a critical discussion, of some of the rules for the
performance of speech acts that are conductive to the resolution. Van Eemeren
(2001b) clarifies, “Only after it has become clear which specific criterion for
satisfying a norm pertaining to a particular stage of the resolution process has not
been met can it be determined which fallacy has been committed” (p.300). In brief,
a fallacy can be said to be a speech act non-conforming to the rules of a critical
discussion. Starting from the rules that constitute the code of conduct, pragma-
dialecticians classify the fallacies into ten basic categories, with subtypes,
according to the rule being violated. In addition to that, they add a number of other
fallacies that might intervene with the accomplishment of the resolution of the
difference of opinion. Considering the rules that discussants have to adhere to and
their related infringements, one could clearly perceive the normative orientation of
the pragma-dialectical approach.
5. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse
It has been shown that naturally occurring argumentative discourse, like many sorts
of discourse, appears to pose difficulties of interpretation for analysts attempting to
describe and assess its content. This is basically due to the fact that such content
might not always be explicit or straightforward, or it might contain elements that
12. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 31
cannot be said to belong to argumentation proper. On these grounds, the analyst
has to reconstruct the discourse under examination in a form that highlights the
essential components constituting the core of the description and evaluation in
order to arrive at a correct interpretation. Of course, as Van Rees (2001) observes,
the process of reconstruction cannot be undertaken in a theoretical vacuum, but
rather it should be sited in a given theoretical conception of argumentation and a
set of related standards for its evaluation. In her words, “Argument reconstruction...
involves identifying and isolating all those and only those elements that are
relevant to the theoretical perspective and for the theoretical purpose of the
analyst” (p.166).
By defining argumentation as an attempt to resolve a difference of opinions
through a regulated exchange of views within a model of a critical discussion,
pragma-dialecticians attempt to provide a reconstruction of argumentative
discourse with the objective of finding out the extent to which its pragmatic and
dialectical layout leads to the resolution of the differences of opinion by focussing
just on the aspects that are important for this resolution. Reconstruction, in this
perspective, entails the production of an analytic overview, which unambiguously
and comprehensively depicts the relevant parts of argumentation. When
formulating an overview, the analyst makes use of specific operations and relies on
precise linguistic and extra-linguistic contextual clues for an objective empirical
justification of the reconstruction process.
5.1. The Components of the Analytic Overview
As regards the aspects of argumentative discourse which are crucial for the
resolution of disputes, van Eemerenet al. (1996) point out that an adequate
evaluation of argumentative discourse can only be reached if the analytic overview
tackles a number of basic elements. These are (1) the standpoints existing in the
discussion, (2) the positions assumed by the discussants together with their starting
and concluding points, (3) the array of arguments advanced by the participants, (4)
the structure of argumentation and (5) the argumentation schemes. To elucidate the
outcomes of considering these aspects and their significance for the evaluation, a
number of analytic questions can be formulated, as outlined in Table 2.
13. 32 Touria Drid
Table 2
Components of an Analytic Overview and their Significance for Evaluation
Aspect of
discourse
Analytic
Question(s)
Outcomes of
Analysis
Significance for
evaluation
1. Difference of
opinion
- What kind is
the difference of
opinion?
Single non-mixed/
multiple non-mixed/
single mixed/
multiple mixed/
Determining whether
the existing
difference has been
resolved.
2. Distribution of
roles
- Which roles
are assumed by
the participants?
Protagonist/
antagonist
Determining the party
in whose favour the
discussion has
terminated.
3. Arguments - What
arguments are
advanced in the
discussion?
- What premises
are expressed/
unexpressed
- An array of
arguments
- An array of
premises (expressed/
unexpressed)
Accounting
thoroughly for the
argumentation
advanced in the
discussion
4. Argumentation
structure
- How are the
arguments
related to each
other?
Single/ multiple/
compound structure
Assessing the
adequacy and
coherence of
arguments
5. Argumentation
schemes
- How are the
premises related
to the
standpoints?
Token/similarity/
consequence
Assessing the
relationship between
premises and
standpoints.
Constructed in such a way, an analytic overview, as van Eemeren, Grootendorst,
Jackson, et al. (1993) observe, offers a proper understanding of argumentative
discourse, a possibility of explaining its coherence and a reliable foundation for its
assessment.
5.2. Analytic Operations
Four analytic operations, or transformations, are made use of to cast discourse into
a dialectical form: deletion, addition, substitution and permutation. Thus the
discourse resulting from the reconstruction process may differ from the actual
discourse in a number of ways. Van Eemeren (2006) considers these
transformations as tools employed to externalize the commitments of participants,
which form the ground for an adequate evaluation of argumentative discourse.
According to Van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1989), deletion consists in selecting
14. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 33
only those elements that are of direct relevance to the resolution process and
eliminating every other element which seems superfluous, repetitive or digressive.
Addition consists in appending the missing parts of discourse which are
contributory to resolving the dispute but are left implicit or unexpressed. One can
postulate the schema that represents the addition transformation as follows:
Original formulation
(incomplete)
ADDITION
(+ Y)
Reconstruction
X X + Y
It is shown that one of the most frequent uses of this transformation is to render the
communicative force of standpoints and arguments unequivocal where this is left
hidden (van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Substitution involves rephrasing the
elements of discourse with regard to their function and disambiguating obscure
expressions by using standard phrases instead. In the same way, the substitution
transformation can be reduced to the schema below:
Original
formulation
(indirect)
SUBSTITUTION Reconstruction
(direct)
X Z
Substitution is essentially made use of in cases of indirectness. An indirect
standpoint or argumentation, which are usually confusing, are replaced by a direct
standard formulation for them, allowing a single reading. For example, the
directive, “Definitely ask her [Miriam]. By all means!” is substituted by the
formulation: “My standpoint is that Miriam should be invited to John’s party” (van
Eemeren & Grootendorst, 2004). Permutation involves the rearrangement of the
constituents of discourse following the stages of the ideal model of a critical
discussion. By applying this transformation, the elements of discourse may
maintain their original positions, or they may be shifted to comply with the ideal
model structure. The four analytical transformations have the merit of interpreting
the verbal moves comprising argumentative discourse in pragma-dialectical terms
(van Eemeren et al., 1993).
Conclusion
The pragma-dialectical approach has brought the study of argumentation
signbificant outcomes. Most importantly, the introduction of the pragmatic
component made it possible to see argumentation from a functional angle. Further,
the extension of the analysis over the sentential boundaries has broadened the
scope of the Speech Act Theory itself, permitting the analyst to consider the way a
15. 34 Touria Drid
constellation of elementary speech acts acting together leads to the fulfillment of
the higher order communicative goal of convincing. The normative layer of the
approach appears in regarding argumentative discourse as a regulated, rule-
governed critical discussion. In recent years, pragma-dialecticians have recognized
the need to bring argumentation to the contextual requirements together with
reasonableness requirements for more effectiveness. This shift towards rhetorical
concerns has led to a significant advancement in the pragma-dialectical approach
by introducing the concept of strategic maneuvering. Van Eemeren (2010) argues
that widening the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation in strategic
maneuvering terms has the outcome of yielding more affluent and more accurate
tools to explore and assess argumentative discourse. On the whole, the pragma-
dialectical approach has now become a major school of thought through the more
specialized analyses which are undertaken by its initiators and followers in more
specific domains of argumentative discourse.
References and notes:
1. Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Searle, J. (1975a). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1),
1–23.
4. Searle, J. (1975b). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax
and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.
5. Van Eemeren, F. H. (1992). Argumentation studies: Five estates. In W.L. Benoit, D.
Hample, and P.J. Benoit. (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 615–654). Berlin.
New York: Foris Publications.
6. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2001a). Fallacies. In F. H. Van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial
concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 135–164). Amsterdam: Amsterdam
University Press.
7. Van Eemeren, F. H (2001 b). Fallacies. In Encyclopedia of rhetoric (pp. 295–301).
New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2006). Pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In B.
Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories
and exemplars (pp. 351–382). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative
discourse.Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
10. Van Eemeren, F. H. (2015). Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative
Discourse: Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Cham,
Switzerland : Springer International Publishing AG.
11. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative
discussions. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Foris Publications.
16. A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse 35
12. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and
fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
13. Van Eemeren, F. H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic theory of argumen-
tation: The pragma-dialectial approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1993).
Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, Alabama: University of
Alabama Press.
15. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002).
Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates
16. Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J.A.,
Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C.W. et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation
theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Van Eemeren, F. H. Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007).
Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Springer.
18. Van Rees, M. A. (2001). Argument interpretation and reconstruction. In F. H. Van
Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp.165–199).
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
19. Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Perspectives on argument. In W.L. Benoit, D. Hample, and P.
J. Benoit. (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 121–143). Berlin: Foris Pub-
lications.
Summary
A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse
Touria Drid
Kasdi Merbah University, Algeria
Theoretical and procedural diverseness is a feature characterising the study of argumen-
tation. The common core in all perspectives is to examine a type of discourse that attempts
to convince another party of the acceptability of one’s view(s) through a set of arguments,
but what differs, to a larger or lesser extent, is the theoretical apparatus through which
discourse is scrutinised. The present paper offers a general account of the pragma-dialec-
tical approach to argumentation. Expatiating on the principal theoretical and methodolo-
gical lines on which the theory proceeds, the paper aims at delineating the analytical tools
provided in this paradigm to handle the intricacies of argumentative discourse.
Keywords: Argumentation, dialectic, logic, pragma-dialectics, speech act.