Abstract
Digressions in argumentative discussion are a kind of failure of relevance. Examination of what actual cases look like reveals several properties of argumentative relevance: (1) The informational relevance of propositions to the truth value of a conclusion should be distinguished from the pragmatic relevance of argumentative acts to the task of resolving a disagreement. (2) Pragmatic irrelevance is a collaborative phenomenon. It does not just short-circuit reasoning; it encourages a failure to take up the demands of an argumentative task. (3) Pragmatic irrelevance can occur not simply by the absence of a connection between what is said and some standpoint in dispute, but also by the presence of a connection between what is said and a competing use of the information. (4) Pragmatic relevance must be accomplished through communicative action.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Atkinson, J.M. and J. Heritage (eds.): 1984, Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Blair, J.A.: 1989, ‘Premise Relevance’, in R. Maier (ed.), Norms in Argumentation: Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 67–83.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris, Dordrecht.
Goodwin, M.H.: 1983, ‘Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children's Conversations’, Journal of Pragmatics 7, 657–677.
Jackson, S., S. Jacobs, and A. Rossi: 1987, ‘Conversational Relevance: Three Experiments in the Pragmatic Connectedness of Conversation’, in M.L. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication Yearbook 10, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 323–347.
Jacobs, S.: 1989a, ‘Arguments and Speech Acts’, Argumentation 3, 345–365.
Jacobs, S.: 1989b, ‘Some Problems of Communication for Argumentation Theory’, ISSA Newsletter 5, 2–10.
Jacobs, S.: 1990, ‘Realizing Ideal Argumentation Through Third Party Dispute Mediation’, paper contributed to the annual convertion of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL, November, 1990.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983, ‘Speech Act Structure in Conversation: Rational Aspects of Pragmatic Coherence’, in R.T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure, and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 47–66.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1989, ‘Building a Model of Conversational Argument’, in B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.J. O'Keefe, and E. Wartella (eds.), Paradigm Dialogues in Communication, Vol. 2: Exemplars, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 153–171.
Jacobs, S., S. Jackson, S. Stearns, andB. Hall: 1991, ‘Digressions in Argumentative Discourse: Multiple Goals, Standing Concerns, and Implicatures’, in K. Tracy (ed.), Understanding Face-to-Face Interaction: Issues Linking Goals and Discourse, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 43–61.
Pearson, J. and N. Thoennes: 1984, ‘The Preliminary Portrait of Client Reactions to Three Court Mediation Programs’, in J.A. Lemmon (ed.), Reaching Effective Agreements, Mediation Quarterly, No. 3, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 21–40.
Searle, J.R.: 1969, 'Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Walton, D.N.: 1982, Topical Relevance in Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jacobs, S., Jackson, S. Relevance and digressions in argumentative discussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation 6, 161–176 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154323
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154323