Pragma-Dialectics
Pragma-dialectics models argumentation as a critical discussion governed by rules for resolving differences of opinion, treating fallacies as violations of those rules.
Definition
Pragma-dialectics is a theory that analyzes argumentation as a goal-directed communicative activity aimed at resolving a difference of opinion through a critical discussion conducted according to rules of reasonableness.
Scope
This topic covers the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed by Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst in Amsterdam. It treats the ideal model of a critical discussion and its four stages, the ten rules for reasonable discussion, the analysis of fallacies as rule violations, and the later extension of the theory through the concept of strategic maneuvering that integrates rhetorical aims with dialectical reasonableness.
Core questions
- What does an ideal reasonable argumentative discussion look like?
- What rules must discussants follow to resolve a dispute on the merits?
- How are fallacies explained as derailments of critical discussion?
- How can rhetorical effectiveness be reconciled with dialectical norms?
Key concepts
- critical discussion
- four stages of resolution
- rules for reasonable discussion
- strategic maneuvering
- fallacy as rule violation
Key theories
- The model of critical discussion
- Van Eemeren and Grootendorst define an ideal procedure with confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding stages, plus rules of conduct; fallacies are moves that obstruct resolution by breaking a rule.
- Strategic maneuvering
- The extended theory analyzes how arguers continually balance the dialectical aim of reasonableness against the rhetorical aim of winning, with fallacies arising when this balance is upset.
History
The pragma-dialectical approach was founded at the University of Amsterdam in the late 1970s and developed through the 1980s and 1990s, combining speech-act pragmatics with a dialectical, critical-rationalist view of argument. Its 1992 and 2004 statements set out the model and rules. In the 2000s van Eemeren and Houtlosser extended it with strategic maneuvering to bring rhetoric back into the dialectical framework.
Debates
- Idealization versus real discourse
- Critics ask whether the ideal model of critical discussion adequately captures actual argumentation, and whether the rules are normatively justified or merely stipulated; strategic maneuvering was partly a response.
Key figures
- Frans van Eemeren
- Rob Grootendorst
- Peter Houtlosser
Related topics
Seminal works
- vaneemeren2004
- vaneemeren2010
Frequently asked questions
- What is 'strategic maneuvering'?
- It is the idea that arguers simultaneously try to be reasonable, as the rules of critical discussion require, and to be effective in advancing their own position. A fallacy occurs when the pursuit of effectiveness overrides reasonableness.