Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Argumentative Practices

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 33))

Abstract

In every domain of argumentative reality various communicative activity types can be distinguished that constitute different kinds of macro-contexts for conducting argumentative discourse. These communicative activity types can be characterized argumentatively by describing the specific conventionalization that is instrumental to realizing their institutional point. Starting from the argumentative characterization, the institutional preconditions can be determined that constitute extrinsic constraints imposed on the strategic manoeuvring that takes place in a communicative activity type. These institutional preconditions also play a role in the implementation of the general soundness criteria for the various argumentative moves in a specific (cluster of) communicative activity type(s). The chapter concludes with an overview of research concerning the influence of the institutional preconditions on the strategic manoeuvring in communicative activity types from various domains.

This chapter is primarily based on van Eemeren (2010: 129–162).

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    By Fairclough’s definition a genre is “a socially ratified way of using language in connection with a particular type of social activity” (1995: 14).

  2. 2.

    We use the term institutionalized, broadly, for all socially or culturally established communicative practices which are formally or informally regulated.

  3. 3.

    Figure 8 is based on a similar figure in van Eemeren (2010: 151).

References

  • Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman Group Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. (1989). Discussieregels in het recht. Een pragma-dialectische analyse van het burgerlijk proces en het strafproces als kritische discussie [Discussion rules in law. A pragma-dialectical analysis of civil lawsuits and criminal trials as a critical discussion]. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. (2009). Strategic maneuvering in the justification of judicial decisions. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 93–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feteris, E. T. (2012). The role of the judge in legal proceedings. A pragma-dialectical analysis. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1(2), 234–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garssen, B. (2013). Strategic maneuvering in European parliamentary debate. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2(1), 33–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labrie, N. (2013). Strategically eliciting concessions from patients in treatment decision-making discussions. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(2), 322–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewiński, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Amsterdam: Sic Sat. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohammed, D. (2009). “The honourable gentleman should make up his mind”. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilgram, R. (2015). A doctor’s argument by authority. An analytical and empirical study of strategic manoeuvring in medical consultation. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2011). Shared medical decision-making. Strategic maneuvering by doctors in the presentation of their treatment preferences to patients. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1811–1818). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. (CD ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonnard, Y. M. (2011). Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia, 1(1), 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. (2013). In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle? The case of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation, 27(1), 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2011). Exploiting the room for strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Dealing with audience demand in the European Parliament. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Argumentation in Context 4.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2015a). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren. Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 881–889). Cham etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2015b). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie in a dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren. Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse. Fifty contributions to the development of pragma-dialectics (pp. 891–898). Cham etc.: Springer. Argumentation Library 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Laar, J. A. (2008). Pragmatic inconsistency and credibility. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Controversy and confrontation. Relating controversy analysis with argumentation theory (pp. 163–179). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Poppel, L. (2011). Solving potential disputes in health brochures with pragmatic argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. J. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1559–1570). Amsterdam: Rozenberg/Sic Sat. (CD ROM).

    Google Scholar 

  • van Poppel, L. (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic argumentation in health brochures. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Poppel, L., & Rubinelli, S. (2011). ‘Try the smarter way’. On the claimed efficacy of advertised medicines. In E. Feteris, B. Garssen & F. Snoeck Henkemans, Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 153–163). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierda, R. (2015). Experience-based authority argumentation in direct-to-consumer medical advertisements. An analytical and experimental study concerning the strategic anticipation of critical questions. Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin/Dordrecht/Providence: de Gruyter/Foris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu Peng (2017). Strategic maneuvering by personal attacks in spokespersons’ argumentative replies at diplomatic press conferences: A pragma-dialectical study of the press conferences of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 6(3), 285–314.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Learned Institute for Argumentation Studies (ILIAS), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren

  2. International Learned Institute for Argumentation Studies (ILIAS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren

Authors
  1. Frans H. van Eemeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans H. van Eemeren .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

van Eemeren, F.H. (2018). Distinguishing Between Different Kinds of Argumentative Practices. In: Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation Library, vol 33. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95381-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation