Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2016 - Routledge.
    This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. 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, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   159 citations  
  • Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
    Develops a logical analysis of dialogue in which two or more parties attempt to advance their own interests. It includes a classification of the major types of dialogues and a discussion of several important informal fallacies.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   385 citations  
  • A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach.Frans H. Van Eemeren & Rob Grootendorst - 2003 - Cambridge University Press.
    In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analysing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. They develop a method for the reconstruction of argumentative discourse that takes into account all aspects that are relevant to a critical assessment. They also propose a practical code of behaviour (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   128 citations  
  • The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2001 - Synthese 127 (1-2):141-159.
    In many contexts a retraction of commitment isfrowned upon. For instance, it is not appreciated,generally, if one withdraws a promise or denies anearlier statement. Critical discussion, too, caneasily be disrupted by retractions, if these occur toofrequently and at critical points. But on the otherhand, the very goal of critical discussion –resolution of a dispute – involves a retraction,either of doubt, or of some expressed point of view.A person who never retracts, not even under pressureof cogent arguments, would hardly qualify as (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   22 citations  
  • From axiom to dialogue: a philosophical study of logics and argumentation.E. M. Barth - 1982 - New York: W. de Gruyter. Edited by E. C. W. Krabbe.
    No detailed description available for "From Axiom to Dialogue".
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   120 citations  
  • Computer decision-support systems for public argumentation: assessing deliberative legitimacy. [REVIEW]William Rehg, Peter McBurney & Simon Parsons - 2005 - AI and Society 19 (3):203-228.
    Recent proposals for computer-assisted argumentation have drawn on dialectical models of argumentation. When used to assist public policy planning, such systems also raise questions of political legitimacy. Drawing on deliberative democratic theory, we elaborate normative criteria for deliberative legitimacy and illustrate their use for assessing two argumentation systems. Full assessment of such systems requires experiments in which system designers draw on expertise from the social sciences and enter into the policy deliberation itself at the level of participants.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Disputation by Design.Sally Jackson - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):183-198.
    In normative pragmatics, a kind of empirical discourse analysis organized by normative theory, the analysis of any communication process begins with an idealized model of the discourse that can be compared with actual practices. Idealizations of argumentation can be found, among other places, in theoretical descriptions of ‘critical discussion’ and other dialogue types. Comparing ideal models with actual practices can pinpoint defects in the models (leading to theoretical refinements), but it can also identify deficiencies in practice. This latter possibility invites (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  • Predicaments of the Concluding Stage.Erik C. W. Krabbe - unknown
    Argumentative discussion is successful only if, at the concluding stage, both parties can agree about the result of their enterprise. If they can not, the whole discussion threatens to start all over again. Dialectical ruling should prevent this from happening. The paper investigates whether dialectical rules may enforce a decision one way or the other; either by recognizing some arguments as conclusive or some criticisms as devastating. At the end the pragma-dialectical model appears more successful than even its protagonists have (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance.Peter Houtlosser, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   70 citations