Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation

A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans

doi:10.2478/slgr-2014-0002

Abstract

:In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.

References

Andone, C. (2013). Argumentation in political interviews. Analyzing and evaluating responses to accusations of inconsistency. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.5
Search in Google Scholar
Austin, L. J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Debowska-Kozlowska K. (2014). Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues, In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), “Polish School of Argumentation”, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3, in review.10.1007/s10503-014-9323-5
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (1986). Dialectical analysis as a normative reconstruction of argumentative discourse. Text, 6(1), 1-16.10.1515/text.1.1986.6.1.1
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Ex- tending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Phila- delphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/aic.2
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1982). The speech acts of arguing and convincing in externalized discussions. Journal of Pragmatics, 6, 1-24.10.1016/0378-2166(82)90036-4
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed to- wards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/Cinnaminson: Foris Publica- tions, PDA 1.10.1515/9783110846089
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1989). Speech act conditions as tools for reconstructing argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 3, 367-383.10.1007/BF00182604
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1991). The study of argumentation from a speech act perspective. In J. Verschueren (Ed.), Pragmatics at issue. Se- lected papers of the international pragmatics conference, 1987 (pp. 151-170). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum.
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumen- tation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Recon- structing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III; speech acts (pp. 41-59). New York: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Hitchcock, D. (2007). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In D. Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of logic, volume 5 of D.M. Gabbay, P. Thaggard& J.Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Science (pp. 101-129). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Search in Google Scholar
Houtlosser, P. (1995). Standpunten in een kritische discussie. Een pragma-dia- lectisch perspectief op de identificatie en reconstructie van standpunten [Standpoints in a critical discussion. A pragma-dialectical perspective on the identification and reconstruction of points of view]. Amsterdam: IFFOTT.
Search in Google Scholar
Houtlosser, P. (2002). Indicators of a point of view. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 169-184). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (1992). ‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational ar- gument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260-269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1992). Structure of conversational argument: pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (681-706). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation, 3, 345-365.10.1007/BF00182603
Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category: the routine grounds for arguing in conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communi- cation, 45, 118-132.10.1080/10570318109374035
Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument: a discourse analytic approach. In J.R. Cox & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research. (pp. 205-237). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1989). Building a model of conversational argument. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B.J. O’Keefe & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication. Vol 2: Paradigm exemplars (pp. 153-171). Newbury Park: Sage.
Search in Google Scholar
Jacobs, S. & Jackson, S. (1992). Relevance and digressions in argumentative dis- cussion: A pragmatic approach. Argumentation, 6, 161-176.10.1007/BF00154323
Search in Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J. (1986). Accusing, proposing, and advising: The strategic grounds for presumption and the assumption of probative responsibilities. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245-266.10.1023/A:1007704116379
Search in Google Scholar
Koszowy M. & Araszkiewicz M. (2014) Lvov-Warsaw School as a Source of Inspi- ration for Argumentation Theory, In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), “Polish School of Argumentation”, special issue of the journal Argumenta- tion, vol. 3, in review.10.1007/s10503-014-9321-7
Search in Google Scholar
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple constraints. In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversa- tional interaction (pp. 79-112). New York: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Poppel, L. van (2012). The strategic function of variants of pragmatic argumenta- tion in health brochures. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 1(1), 97-112.10.1075/jaic.1.1.08pop
Search in Google Scholar
Poppel, L. van (2013). Getting the vaccine now will protect you in the future! A pragma-dialectical analysis of strategic maneuvering with pragmatic ar- gumentation in health brochures. Dissertation University of Amsterdam.
Search in Google Scholar
Rees, M. A. van (1992). The adequacy of speech act theory for explaining con- versational phenomena: A response to some conversation analytical critics. Journal of Pragmatics, 17, 31-47.10.1016/0378-2166(92)90027-9
Search in Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696-735.10.1353/lan.1974.0010
Search in Google Scholar
Schegloff, E., & Sachs, H. (1974). Opening up closings. In R. Turner (Ed.), Eth- nomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 223-264). Harmondsworth,Middlesex, England: Penguin.
Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1965).What is a speech act? InM. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 221-239). London: Allen & Unwin.
Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics III; speech acts (pp. 59-83). New York: Academic Press.
Search in Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
Search in Google Scholar