Abstract
This paper sets out basic principles for the interpretation and assessment of contextual factors in argumentative discourse, which may be combined with argumentation norms to build a system of argument evaluation. The theoretical background is given, and the procedure for evaluation is described, then exemplified.
This Informal Argument Pragmatics forms the basis for part of a larger evaluation tool, the Comprehensive Assessment Procedure for Natural Argumentation (CAPNA). CAPNA is based on an understanding of argumentation as having three distinct, but related, parts: process, reasoning, and expression. This paper describes how the procedural questions for pragmatic process evaluation are derived and employed, and considers how the proposed pragmatics relates to the rules for argumentation given in the pragma-dialectical approach.