Goodwin C. Interstitial argument. Grimshaw Ed. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversa- tions pp.
Hamblin C. London: Methuen.
- Top Authors!
- Bestselling Series.
- Conrad and Impressionism.
- Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective?
- Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective;
- Modern Poetry After Modernism.
Haviland J. Text 6 3 Hymes D. Models of the interaction of language and social life. Hymes Eds.
Public use of reason and argumentation: analysis of discussions about the More Doctors Program
Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnog- raphy of communication pp. New York: Holt Rinehart andWinston. Jacquette D. Two sides of any issue. Argumentation 21 2 Johnson R.
Manifest rationality. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni C. A multilevel approach in the study of talk-in- interaction. Pragmatics 7 1 Introducing polylogue. Krabbe E. Logic and games. Considering pragma-dialectics pp. Mahwah: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates. Lennox J. Aristotelian problems. Ancient Philosophy 14 Levinson S. In: P. Wootton Eds.
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies : A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
Erving Goffman: Exploring the interaction order pp. Cambridge MA: Polity Press. Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discus- sion forums. Argumentation and Advocacy 47 2 Towards a critique-friendly approach to the straw man fallacy evaluation. Argumentation 25 4 Debating multiple positions in multi-party online deliberation: Sides positions and cases.
Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 1 Argumentative polylogues in a dialec- tical framework: A methodological inquiry.
- Dot Complicated: Untangling Our Wired Lives?
- The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction.
- The Alternative Hero?
- Neuroimaging of Consciousness.
- Concise Encyclopedia of Educational Linguistics.
- Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective - CRC Press Book?
- Customers who viewed this item also viewed.
Disagreeing on the same side of the bar- ricade: Argumentation in multi-party political discussions during the Arab Spring. Maynard D. Offering and soliciting collaboration in multi-party dis- putes among children and other humans. Human Studies 9 Perelman Ch. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation transl. Original work published Sophist transl. Loeb Classical Library Prakken H.
Models of persuasion dialogue. Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence pp. Seller Inventory LQ Shipped from UK. Condition: NEW. For all enquiries, please contact Herb Tandree Philosophy Books directly - customer service is our primary goal. Book Description Lawrence Erlbaum, Seller Inventory M Condition: Brand New.
In Stock. Frans H. Publisher: Routledge , This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. View all copies of this ISBN edition:. Synopsis This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. Buy New Learn more about this copy. About AbeBooks.
Other Popular Editions of the Same Title. Search for all books with this author and title. In this theory, there is a dual dynamic in the deliberative process: an informal process of will formation in the public sphere and political deliberation, which is regulated by democratic procedures. The model is the synthesis of two classical approaches from democratic theory, republican and liberal 2 , and represents a valuable theoretical and analytical contribution to the criticism of democratic assumptions that tend to restrict political action to certain institutional actors and structures, presumed to be the only options in light of social plurality and complexity 3.
The public sphere arose out of a historical process that led to the rise of the bourgeoisie, tied to the expansion of the capitalist economy and the modern state, where a new type of relationship with power was established. Individuals, meeting in forums for face-to-face interaction, separate from the state, started demanding moral justifications for their acts from their rulers 1.
The public sphere has taken on an active role in formal processes mediated institutionally, moving forward in politics, which start with the formation of opinions and will in informal public spheres and flow into procedural channels during formal times of deliberation and decision-making 2. This is an open and permeable communication flow, especially bearing in mind advances in communication technologies, which have created unprecedented modes of interaction and broadened the forums and scope of politically relevant conversations 5.
The public use of reason establishes a relationship between participation and public argumentation, since the rational acceptability of policies is generated through an argumentative process aimed at mutual understanding 4 , 6. Habermas attempted to define normative content for the practice of argumentation, through pragmatic assumptions that must be upheld by participants engaging in argumentation when they decide to participate in a cooperative effort to obtain understanding.
The most important assumptions are inclusiveness, symmetric distribution of communicative freedoms, conditions of frankness, and the absence of external and internal constraints on the structure of the argumentation 7. Habermas provided a theoretical anchor for the analysis of argumentation processes that unfold in the public sphere. However, concrete aspects of argumentation practices are not clarified. Argumentation Theory can help in this regard. Pragma-dialectics is an offshoot of argumentation theory that has gained substantial prominence 9.
It adopts a critical-rationalist philosophy and seeks to combine descriptive and normative aspects of argumentation analysis, using elements from linguistics, speech-act theory and new dialectics 10 - The dialectical perspective seeks to explain how various argumentation dynamics help solve differences of opinion. Argumentation is a complex act of speech to help overcome differences of opinion or disputes. An argument, therefore, is a series of statements presented to defend a standpoint. The ideal model for the stages of a critical discussion serves as a tool to identify where an argument-based discussion is wrong.
It facilitates the detection of implicit elements and analyzes them to clarify their role in the resolution process of a discussion The first stage is confrontation, where the participants realize there is a difference of opinion.