Frans H. van Eemeren - Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
Here you can read online Frans H. van Eemeren - Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective full text of the book (entire story) in english for free. Download pdf and epub, get meaning, cover and reviews about this ebook. year: 2016, publisher: Routledge, genre: Romance novel. Description of the work, (preface) as well as reviews are available. Best literature library LitArk.com created for fans of good reading and offers a wide selection of genres:
Romance novel
Science fiction
Adventure
Detective
Science
History
Home and family
Prose
Art
Politics
Computer
Non-fiction
Religion
Business
Children
Humor
Choose a favorite category and find really read worthwhile books. Enjoy immersion in the world of imagination, feel the emotions of the characters or learn something new for yourself, make an fascinating discovery.
- Book:Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
- Author:
- Publisher:Routledge
- Genre:
- Year:2016
- Rating:3 / 5
- Favourites:Add to favourites
- Your mark:
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective: summary, description and annotation
We offer to read an annotation, description, summary or preface (depends on what the author of the book "Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective" wrote himself). If you haven't found the necessary information about the book — write in the comments, we will try to find it.
The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion.
Frans H. van Eemeren: author's other books
Who wrote Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective? Find out the surname, the name of the author of the book and a list of all author's works by series.
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective — read online for free the complete book (whole text) full work
Below is the text of the book, divided by pages. System saving the place of the last page read, allows you to conveniently read the book "Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective" online for free, without having to search again every time where you left off. Put a bookmark, and you can go to the page where you finished reading at any time.
Font size:
Interval:
Bookmark:
ARGUMENTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND FALLACIES
A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
ARGUMENTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND FALLACIES
A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective
Frans H. van Eemeren
Rob Grootendorst
University of Amsterdam
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: a pragma-dialectical
perspective / Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-1069-2 (C)
1. Persuasion (Rhetoric) 2. Fallacies (Logic) 3. Speech acts
(Linguistics) 4. CommunicationPhilosophy. I. Grootendorst, Rob.
II. Title.
P301.5.P47E33 1992
401.41dc209140241
CIP
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original may be apparent.
We could not agree more with Gilbert Harman (1986) that there is a difference in category between rules of inference and rules of implication. Reasoned change in view should not be conflated with logical proof of a conclusion. In our opinion, the dissociation from logic should even be carried one step further. If it is argumentative inference that we are interested in, reasoned change is to be put in the context of communication where one party attempts to convince the other party of the acceptability of a standpoint. This does not mean that logic has no part to play in the study of argumentation. A difference of opinion can only be resolved if the argumentative discourse complies with a variety of norms for critical discussion. Logical validity has its own proper place among the multifarious norms incorporated in the rules for critical discussion.
In Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies, a critical discussion is conceived of as an interactional procedure aimed at resolving a difference of opinion through a regular exchange of speech acts. The book provides an outlook on a theoretical framework for analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse as a critical discussion. Particular attention is paid to the things that can go wrong in the various stages of the critical discussion. It is shown that the verbal moves that are traditionally known as fallacies can be regarded as specific violations of the rules for critical discussion.
Our general aim in this book is to elucidate, on behalf of colleagues and interested students, our own pragma-dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, which brings together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. Although we frequently refer to the literature, at this stage, we refrain from making detailed comparisons with other approaches. Such contrasting reviews simply have to wait. The same goes for expounding on further elaborations and applications of our approach. We trust that those who care about method will appreciate that we have set these limits to our ambitions.
First, we would like to acknowledge that a substantial part of this book is based on work we have done with Tjark Kruiger at the University of Amsterdam. By their valuable and detailed comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, Trudy Govier and John Woods helped us further in focusing the book. We wish to thank them for the stimulating discussions we had with them during their stay in our department in 1987 and 1988. We are also grateful to Maurice Finocchiaro and Charles Willard for giving their careful attention to the manuscript and to Anthony Blair for his thoughtful reactions to some of our contentions.
The work on this book was supported by our fellowships at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS). We are greatly indebted to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science for giving us the opportunity to set up a Nucleus Group on Fallacies as violations of rules for argumentative discourse and to spend the academic year 19891990 in the company of argumentation experts at NIAS.
The members of the NIAS group, Douglas Walton, John Woods, Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Agnes Haft-van Rees, Agnes Verbiest, and Charles Willard, encouraged us to finish the book by making useful suggestions to that intent. We hope that they will find that the final result testifies to our ability to make good use of their sometimes radical and undermining remarks.
Eveline Feteris, Fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science, and our research assistants Rinke Berkenbosch, Susanne Gerritsen, Peter Houtlosser, Willem Koetsenruijter, Pauline Slot, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, and Erik Viskil helped us in completing the notes and the bibliography. Thanks are also due to the anonymous referees of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frans H. van Eemeren
Rob Grootendorst
ARGUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION
The Pragma-Dialectical Approach
In the past decade, the study of argumentation has developed into a field of study in its own right.
In North America as well as in Europe the study of argumentation has for a long time been dominated by the works of Toulmin and Perelman. Both Toulmin and Perelman tried to present an alternative to formal logic that is better suited to analyzing everyday argumentation. Both did so by taking the rational procedures of legal reasoning as a model to start from. In our opinion, however, the result is in neither case quite satisfactory. This is at least partly due to their ill-considered prejudice that for the analysis of argumentation logic has nothing to offer. Without paying any attention to modern developments, formal logic is equated with classical syllogistic logic or, just like that, declared inapplicable to ordinary arguments.
More importantly, for their parts, Toulmins and Perelmans alternatives just as much fail to recognize argumentation as a phenomenon of ordinary language use that should be treated as such. By dealing with isolated arguments, and neglecting the pragmatic aspects of the verbal and nonverbal context of the speech event in which they occur, as for an alternative to formal logic Toulmin and Perelman have less to offer for the study of argumentation than they claim.
In The Uses of Argument, Toulmin (1958) provides a model that is supposed to reflect the structure of arguments. His model constitutes a description of the procedural form of arguments. According to Toulmin, this procedural form is field-independent, that is, independent of the nature of the issues to which the argumentation refers. The soundness of argument is, in his view, not primarily determined by its procedural form, but depends on the extent to which the backing renders the warrant acceptable. As the content of a backingas opposed to its formis related to the nature of the issue to which the argument pertains, Toulmin concluded that the criteria used in assessing the soundness of arguments must be field-dependent.
Font size:
Interval:
Bookmark:
Similar books «Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective»
Look at similar books to Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. We have selected literature similar in name and meaning in the hope of providing readers with more options to find new, interesting, not yet read works.
Discussion, reviews of the book Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective and just readers' own opinions. Leave your comments, write what you think about the work, its meaning or the main characters. Specify what exactly you liked and what you didn't like, and why you think so.