Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse

Studies in Rhetoric and Communication

by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson

Communications scholars from the University of Amsterdam and of Arizona analyze argumentation in ordinary disputes. They present an ideal model, and show how it works in an ideal situation, such as a dispute about the merits of two opposing cases. Then they start looking at the real ordinary conversation, third-party mediation, religious confrontations, cases in which at least one of the participants is not looking for resolution, and so on. Accessible to nonspecialists. Annotation copyright Book News, Inc. Portland, Or.

216 pages, Paperback

First published October 1, 1993

About the author

Frans Hendrik van Eemeren is a Dutch scholar, professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. He is noted for his Pragma-dialectics theory, an argumentation theory which he developed with Rob Grootendorst from the early 1980s onwards. He has published numerous books and papers, including Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.

Frans H. van Eemeren together with Rob Grootendorst, developed pragma-dialectics, or pragma-dialectical theory, at the University of Amsterdam. It is an argumentation theory that is used to analyze and evaluate argumentation in actual practice. Unlike strictly logical approaches (which focus on the study of argument as product), or purely communication approaches (which emphasize argument as a process), pragma-dialectics was developed to study the entirety of an argumentation as a discourse activity. Thus, the pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a complex speech act that occurs as part of natural language activities and has specific communicative goals.