scholarly journals Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. Van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Abstract Model ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Crucial Question ◽  
Analytical Instruments ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Communicative Activity

To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start answering the crucial question about the typical characteristics of their discourse asked by interested lawyers, politicians, academics and other practitioners of argumentation.

Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
The Political ◽  
Strategic Maneuvering ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Communicative Practices ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Political Deliberation ◽  
Communicative Activity

In this essay, first the pragma-dialectical theory of strategic maneuvering is explained. Then the focus is on the conventionalization of communicative practices in communicative activity types and the institutional constraints it imposes on strategic maneuvering. Thus, an adequate background is created for discussing, on the basis of several recent projects, pragma-dialectical research of argumentative discourse in the political domain.

Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-166
Author(s):  
Anca Gâţă
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Strategic Maneuvering ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Csr Reporting ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Communicative Activity Type ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Communicative Activity

Abstract In the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is approached in this study as a particular communicative activity type, which can be reconstructed as part of a critical discussion. CSR reports excerpts are viewed in the analysis as parts of a virtual critical discussion in which a company acts as a protagonist maneuvering strategically to defend the standpoint according to which the business is operated ethically, and to convince the audience about what is mentioned in the standpoint. The reconstructed standpoint of a CSR report, We are doing business responsibly, may be regarded as stereotypical, since it corresponds to the institutional point of this regulated type of communicative activity. In the first part of the study, a brief overview is given of the CSR reporting activity, then the concept of strategic maneuvering is presented, under its three aspects (topical potential, audience demand, and presentational techniques), as well as the notion of communicative activity type, with a highlight on the role of the (macro-)context and of institutional preconditions in analytical studies on argumentation. The analysis in the latter part of the study concerns presentational techniques used by the protagonist in the confrontation and in the argumentation stages in CSR reporting, in order to reconcile rhetorical and dialectical aims by maneuvering strategically. The coordinatively and the subordinatively compound structure of argumentation, the symptomatic argument scheme, as well as reformulations of the standpoint, use of emotionally endowed words, concentration of the arguments in the form of nominal sentences acting as headings are among the most important presentational devices constitutive of argumentative moves aimed at convincing the audience that the company acts ethically, but also at promoting a positive image of its business responsibility, which appears to be the ground for winning the discussion.

Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-218
Author(s):  
Foluke Olayinka Unuabonah
Keyword(s):  
Information Seeking ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Argumentation Schemes ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Communicative Activity Type ◽  
Causal Argumentation ◽  
Communicative Activity

Abstract This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.

scholarly journals Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128
Author(s):  
Ton van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentative Activity

Abstract Strategic manoeuvring in plenary debates in the Second Chamber of Dutch ParliamentThe (extended) pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is carried out within specific argumentative activity types. In this paper it is argued that pragma-dialectics offers a fruitful approach to study political debate. The approach and its added value are discussed and illustrated on the basis of a specific type of political debate in a specific argumentative activity type: the plenary debate in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.

scholarly journals Using argumentation theory to identify the challenges of shared decision-making when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Communication Skills ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Ideal Model ◽  
Difference Of Opinion ◽  
The Ideal

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.

Context-dependency of argumentative patterns in discourse

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Context Dependency ◽  
The Political ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Specific Domain ◽  
Introductory Article ◽  
Argument Scheme ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Communicative Activity Type ◽  
Communicative Activity

Abstract This introductory article concludes the examination of prototypical argumentative patterns manifesting themselves in communicative activity types in the political, legal and medical domain reported in this special issue of the Journal of Argumentation in Context (JAIC) and an earlier special issue of the journal Argumentation (2016, 30(1)). First, the results pertaining to the use of pragmatic argumentation in the main argumentation of prototypical argumentative patterns in the various domains are described that were reported in the latter issue. Next, the results are described which are reported in this issue of JAIC; they pertain to prototypical argumentative patterns in the various domains that come into being as a result of the employment of an argument scheme in the main argumentation that is perfectly suited for being used in a certain communicative activity type in a specific domain. In the following section an overview is provided of the most conspicuous differences in the prototypical argumentative patterns between the various communicative domains caused by the institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering in the communicative activity types that were examined. Finally, some general conclusions are discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document