Abstract
Next to pragma-dialectics various other approaches to argumentation have developed during the past decades. First, the neo-classical views of Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca are discussed, which are still influential. Second, attention is paid to the formal dialectical approaches, developed by researchers with a background in logic and stimulated by the writings of Naess, Crawshay-Williams, Lorenzen and his Erlangen school, and Hamblin. Third, the various contributions to normatively oriented informal logic are briefly described. Fourth, the descriptive rhetorical and linguistic approaches are given their due. In all cases it is indicated to which components of the research program of argumentation theory each of these approaches contributes and how it relates to the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation that has been expounded in this volume. In conclusion some future prospects are highlighted, especially for further development of the pragma-dialectical approach.
This chapter is to a large extent based on van Eemeren et al. (2014).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a discussion of the distinction between these and other senses of “formal”, see van Eemeren et al. (2014: 303–304).
- 2.
For a more detailed discussion of the various formal dialectical systems, see van Eemeren et al. (2014: 307–367).
- 3.
See van Eemeren et al. (2014: 698–777).
- 4.
See van Eemeren et al. (2014: 679–683; 683–688; 689–694; 695–698, respectively).
- 5.
For the implementation of argumentation theory in artificial intelligence , see van Eemeren et al. (2015: 615–666).
References
Aakhus, M. (2011). Crafting interactivity for stakeholder engagement. Transforming assumptions about communication in science and policy. Health Physics, 101(5), 531–535.
Aakhus, M., & Lewinski, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Anscombre, J. C. (1994). La nature des topoï [The nature of the topoi]. In J. C. Anscombre (Ed.), La théorie des topoï [The theory of the topoi] (pp. 49–84). Paris: Kimé.
Anscombre, J. C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in the language]. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Battersby, M. E. (1989). Critical thinking as applied epistemology. Relocating critical thinking in the philosophical landscape. Informal Logic, 11, 91–100.
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (1995). Epistemic normativity, argumentation, and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and evaluation. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994), Vol. II (pp. 286-299). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006a). In defense of the objective epistemic approach to argumentation. Informal Logic, 26(1), 91–101.
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2006b). Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments. Rivals or partners? In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 1–10). Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Biro, J., & Siegel, H. (2011). Argumentation, arguing, and arguments. Comments on Giving reasons. Theoria, 72, 279–287.
Bitzer, L. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 1–14.
Borel, M.-J., Grize, J.-B., & Miéville, D. (1983). Essai de logique naturelle [A treatise on natural logic]. Bern/Frankfurt/New York: Peter Lang.
Brockriede, W., & Ehinger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument. An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46, 44–53.
Burke, K. D. (1966). Language as symbolic action. Essays on life, literature, and method. Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Crawshay-Williams, R. (1957). Methods and criteria of reasoning. An inquiry into the structure of controversy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Doury, M. (1997). Le débat immobile. L’Argumentation dans le débat médiatique sur les parasciences. [The immobile debate. Argumentation in the media debate on the parasciences]. Paris: Kimé.
Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. New York, NY: Dodd, Mead & Company.
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fahnestock, J. (2009). Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 131–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 1.
Finocchiaro, M. A. (2005). Arguments about arguments. Systematic, critical and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, J. B. (1991). Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure. Berlin/New York: Foris/de Gruyter.
Freeman, J. B. (2005). Acceptable premises. An epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, J. B. (2011). Argument structure. Representation and theory. Dordrecht/New York: Springer.
Garssen. B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek [Argument schemes in a pragma-dialectical perspective. A theoretical and empirical study]. Amsterdam: IFOTT. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Goodnight, G. Th. (1982). The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument. A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 214–227.
Goodnight, G. T. (2012). The personal, technical, and public spheres. A note on 21st century critical communication inquiry. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(4), 258–267.
Goodwin, J. (2005). Designing premises. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 99–114). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 9.
Goodwin, J. (2007). Argument has no function. Informal Logic, 27(1), 69–90.
Govier, T. (1987). Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht/Providence, RI: Foris.
Greco Morasso, S. (2011). Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 3.
Grize, J. B. (1982). De la logique à l’argumentation [From logic to argumentation]. Geneva: Librairie Droz.
Haarscher, G. (2009). Perelman’s pseudo-argument as applied to the creationism controversy. Argumentation, 23, 361–373.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon. (English transl.; original work in German 1981).
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted in 1986, with a preface by J. Plecnik & J. Hoaglund. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Hample, D. (2005). Arguing. Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hansen, H. V. (2011). Are there methods of informal logic? In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation, cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011 (pp. 1-13). Windsor, ON: OSSA. (CD ROM).
Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (Eds., 1995). Fallacies. Classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: Penn State Press.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Doctoral dissertation Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hicks, D., & Eckstein, J. (2012). Higher order strategic maneuvering by shifting standards of reasonableness in cold-war editorial argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 321–339). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 4.
Hitchcock, D. L. (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In D. Jacquette, (Ed.), Philosophy of logic, 5 of D. M. Gabbay, P. Thagard & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (pp. 101–129). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1982). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion. A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 77–90.
Jacobs, S. (1998). Argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286.
Jenicek, M., Croskerry, P., & Hitchcock, D. L. (2011). Evidence and its uses in health care and research. The role of critical thinking. Medical Science Monitor, 17(1), 12–17.
Jenicek, M., & Hitchcock, D. L. (2005). Evidence-based practice. Logic and critical thinking in medicine. American Medical Association.
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (1983). Logical self-defense. 2nd ed. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson. (1st ed. 1977).
Johnson, R. H., & Blair, J. A. (2006). Logical self-defense (reprint of Johnson & Blair, 1994). New York: International Debate Education Association. (1st ed. 1977).
Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1967). Logische Propädeutik oder Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens [Logical propaedeutic or pre-school of reasonable discourse] (revised ed.). Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut. Hochschultaschenbücher 227.
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumption and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266.
Kauffeld, F. J. (2009). What are we learning about the pragmatics of the arguer’s obligations? In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument. Selected papers from the 15th biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: NCA.
Kopperschmidt, J. (1989). Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse [Methodology of argumentation analysis]. Stuttgart: Frommann-Holzboog.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2007). Review of Freeman (2005a). Argumentation, 21(1), 101–113.
Leff, M. (2003). Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 255–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik [Dialogic logic]. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Lumer, Chr. (2005). The epistemological theory of argument – How and why? Informal Logic, 25(3), 214–232.
Manolescu, B. I. (2006). A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation, 20(3), 327–43.
Næss, A. (1966). Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. (A. Hannay, transl.). London: Allen & Unwin. (English transl. of En del elementære logiske emner. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1947).
Nimmo, D., & Mansfield, M. W. (1986). The teflon president. The relevance of Chaïm Perelman’s formulations for the study of political communication. In J. L. Golden & J. J. Pilotta (Eds.), Practical reasoning in human affairs. Studies in honor of Chaïm Perelman (pp. 357–377). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Perelman, Ch. (1979). La philosophie du pluralisme et la nouvelle rhétorique [The philosophy of pluralism and the new rhetoric]. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 127/128, 5–17.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (English transl. by J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver of Ch. Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958). La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (3rd ed. Brussels: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles)).
Piaget, J., & Beth, E. W. (1961). Epistémologie mathématique et psychologie. Essai sur les relations entre la logique formelle et la pensée réelle [Mathematical epistemology and psychology. Study on the relation between formal logic and natural thought]. Paris: PUF, EEG XIV.
Pinto, R. C. (2006). Evaluating inferences. The nature and role of warrants. Informal Logic, 26(3), 287–327. [Reprinted in D. L. Hitchcock & B. Verheij (Eds.), Arguing on the Toulmin model. New essays on argument analysis and evaluation (pp. 115-144). Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 10].
Plantin, Chr. (1996). L’argumentation [Argumentation]. Paris: Le Seuil.
Putnam, L. L., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., & Turner, D. (1986). The evolution of case arguments in teachers’ bargaining. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 63–81.
Reboul, O. (1990). Rhétorique et dialectique chez Aristote [Aristotle’s views on rhetoric and dialectic]. Argumentation, 4, 35–52.
Reed, Chr. A. (1997). Representing and applying knowledge for argumentation in a social context. AI and Society, 11(3–4), 138-154.
Reed, Chr. A., & Norman, T. J. (2003). A roadmap of research in argument and computation. In Chr. A. Reed & T. J. Norman (Eds.), Argumentation machines. New frontiers in argument and computation (pp. 1–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Reed, Chr. A., & Rowe, G. W. A. (2004). Araucaria. Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, 13(4), 961–979.
Rigotti, E. (2009). Whether and how classical topics can be revived within contemporary argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). New York: Springer. Argumentation Library 14.
Rocci, A. (2009). Manoeuvring with tropes. The case of the metaphorical polyphonic and framing of arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 257–282). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 1.
Schiappa, E. (2002). Evaluating argumentative discourse from a rhetorical perspective. Defining ‘person’ and ‘human life’ in constitutional disputes over abortion. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 65–80). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer. Argumentation Library 6.
Swearingen, C. J., & Schiappa, E. (2009). Historical studies in rhetoric. Revisionist methods and new directions. In A. A. Lunsford, K. H. Wilson & R. A. Eberly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies (pp. 1–12). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Tindale, Chr. W. (1999), Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tindale, Chr. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, etc.: Sage.
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting. An invitation to philosophy. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).
Toulmin, S. E., Rieke, R. D., & Janik, A. (1979). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan. (2nd ed. 1984).
van Eemeren, F. H. (2015a). Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics. Cham etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2015b). Bingo! Promising developments in argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory (pp. 3–25). Heidelberg etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 28.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. [Also available as an electronic publication].
van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B., & Meuffels, B. (2015). The disguised ad baculum fallacy empirically investigated. Strategic maneuvering with threats. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. J. Garssen (Eds.), Scrutinizing argumentation in practice (pp. 313–326). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. (2nd enlarged ed. 1981; 3rd ed. 1986).
van Eemeren, F. H., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2011). Argumentation. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse studies. A multidisciplinary introduction (pp. 85–106). Los Angeles etc.: Sage.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Identifying argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Perspectives and approaches (pp. 70–81). Dordrecht: Foris. [Republished in F. H. van Eemeren (2015). Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp.703-712). Cham etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27].
van Eemeren, F. H., & Verheij, B. (2017). Argumentation theory in formal and computational perspective. IFCoLog Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 4(8), 2099–2181.
van Rees, M. A. (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 13.
Verheij, B. (1999). Automated argument assistance for lawyers. Proceedings of the seventh international conference on artificial intelligence and law (pp. 43–52). New York: ACM.
Visser, J. C. (2016). A dialogue game for critical discussion. Groundwork in the formalisation and computerisation of the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Walton, D. N., Reed, Chr. A., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weinstein, M. (1994). Informal logic and applied epistemology. In R. H. Johnson & J. A. Blair (Eds.), New essays in informal logic (pp. 140–161). Windsor: Informal Logic.
Wenzel, J. W. (1987). The rhetorical perspective on argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 101–109). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris.
Willard, Ch. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin/Dordrecht/Providence: de Gruyter/Foris.
Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the tradition of speech communication studies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation, I (pp. 32–52). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Zarefsky, D. (2006). Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions. Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20(4), 399–416.
Zarefsky, D. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in political argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed., 2009), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 115–130). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 1.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H. (2018). Pragma-Dialectics Amidst Other Approaches to Argumentation. In: Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95380-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95381-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)