Pragma-dialectics (also known as the pragma-dialectical theory) is a program in argumentation theory developed since the late 1970s by Dutch scholars Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst at the University of Amsterdam. It conceives argumentation as a form of goal-directed communicative activity aimed at the reasonable resolution of differences of opinion by means of a critical discussion. Combining a pragmatic interest in how argumentative discourse is actually used with a dialectical interest in how it ought to proceed, pragma-dialectics studies argumentation as a complex speech act that occurs in natural language use and serves specific communicative purposes. [1] [2]
The theory is both descriptive and normative. It offers tools for reconstructing ordinary argumentative exchanges in terms of an ideal model of a critical discussion and uses that model to evaluate whether a discourse contributes to resolving a disagreement in a reasonable way. Central to pragma-dialectics is a four-stage model of critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation and concluding) and a set of ten discussion rules that parties should observe; systematic violations of these rules are treated as fallacies. The approach integrates insights from critical rationalism, formal dialectics, speech act theory, Gricean language philosophy and discourse analysis, operationalized through meta-theoretical principles such as functionalization, socialization, externalization and dialectification. [3] [4] [5] [6]
Later developments of the pragma-dialectical framework incorporate rhetorical insights in the notion of strategic maneuvering, which analyzes how arguers try to be both reasonable and persuasive by choosing topical starting points, adapting to their audience and exploiting presentational devices within the constraints of a critical discussion. [7] [8] Because it combines detailed analytical instruments with clear evaluative standards, pragma-dialectics has been applied to a wide range of argumentative practices, including legal and political argumentation, mediation, negotiation, (parliamentary) debate, interpersonal and health communication, and the study of complex and visual argumentation. [9] [10]
Pragma-dialectics is a program in argumentation theory that explains how people can settle their differences of opinion by means of a critical discussion. Developed since the late 1970s by Dutch argumentation scholars Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst at the University of Amsterdam, it combines a pragmatic interest in how language is actually used in argumentative exchanges with a dialectical interest in how such exchanges ought to proceed if they are to be reasonable. [1] [2]
The "pragma" dimension highlights that argumentation is a goal-directed form of communication carried out through speech acts in everyday contexts such as legal disputes, political debates, and personal disagreements. The "dialectical" dimension focuses on the interaction between parties who defend or criticize standpoints, and on the procedures that should guide their discussion if they want to reach a rationally motivated outcome instead of merely trying to "win" at all costs. [11] [12]
Pragma-dialectics is both descriptive and normative. On the one hand, it offers tools for reconstructing ordinary argumentative discourse in terms of an ideal model of a critical discussion. On the other hand, it uses that model to evaluate whether a discussion helps or hinders the reasonable resolution of disagreement. Central to this approach is a four-stage model of critical discussion (confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding) and a set of ten rules that reasonable discussants should follow; systematic violations of these rules are treated as fallacies. [13] [5]
Because it combines a detailed analysis of argumentative moves with clear standards for their evaluation, pragma-dialectics has been applied to many types of discourse, including legal and political argumentation, mediation and negotiation, health communication, and the study of complex and visual argumentation. [9] [10]
In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is viewed as a communicative and interactional discourse phenomenon that is to be studied from a normative as well as a descriptive perspective. The dialectical dimension is inspired by normative insights from critical rationalism and formal dialectics, the pragmatic dimension by descriptive insights from speech act theory, Gricean language philosophy and discourse analysis. [6]
To allow for the systematic integration of the pragmatic and dialectical dimensions in the study of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical theory uses four meta-theoretical principles as its point of departure: functionalization, socialization, externalization and dialectification. Functionalization is achieved by treating discourse as a purposive act. Socialization is achieved by extending the speech act perspective to the level of interaction. Externalization is achieved by capturing the propositional and interactional commitments created by the speech acts performed. And dialectification is achieved by regimenting the exchange of speech acts to an ideal model of a critical discussion. [14]
Based on the meta-theoretical principles described above, the pragma-dialectical theory regards argumentation as ideally being part of a critical discussion. [15] The ideal model of a critical discussion treats argumentative discourse as a discussion in which argumentation is directed at the reasonable resolution of a difference of opinion. The ideal model can serve as a heuristic as well as a critical tool: it respectively constitutes an instrument for the argumentation analyst when deciding about the communicative functions of speech acts and provides a standard for argument evaluation. [16]
In this ideal model of a critical discussion, four discussion stages are distinguished that the discussion parties have to go through to resolve their difference of opinion: the confrontation stage, opening stage, argumentation stage and concluding stage. [17] In the confrontation stage, the interlocutors establish that they have a difference of opinion. In the opening stage, they decide to resolve this difference of opinion. The interlocutors determine their points of departure: they agree upon the rules of the discussion and establish which propositions they can use in their argumentation. In the argumentation stage, the protagonist defends his/her standpoint by putting forward arguments to counter the antagonist's objections or doubt. In the concluding stage, the discussion parties evaluate to what extent their initial difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favor. The model also defines the nature and distribution of the speech acts that play a constructive part in the various stages of the resolution process.
The ideal model stipulates ten rules that apply to an argumentative discussion. Violations of the discussion rules are said to frustrate the reasonable resolution of the difference of opinion and they are therefore considered as fallacies.
The ten rules are: [18]
The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation has incorporated insights from rhetoric into the analysis of argumentative discussion. [19] Parties involved in a difference of opinion "maneuver strategically" to simultaneously realize their dialectical and their rhetorical aims. In other words, the parties in an argumentative discussion attempt to be persuasive (have their standpoint accepted) while observing the critical standards for argumentative discourse. In each of the critical discussion stages there is a rhetorical goal that corresponds with the dialectical goal and interlocutors can make use of three analytical aspects to balance effectiveness and reasonableness: making an opportune selection from the topical potential available at the stage concerned, approaching the audience effectively, and carefully exploiting presentational means. These three aspects correspond with some focal points of rhetorical study – topics, audience adaptation and presentational devices – so that insights acquired in rhetoric are brought to bear in explaining how rhetorical and dialectical considerations play a part in the various ways of strategic maneuvering.
From a pragma-dialectical perspective, in order to get an overview of those aspects in argumentative discourse that are crucial for resolving a difference of opinion, the following analytical operations are carried out:
An analytical overview shows the differences of opinion, the distribution of dialectical roles, the expressed and unexpressed premises that make up the argument, and the argumentation structure (the relationship between a series of arguments presented to defend a standpoint). [10] The analytical overview can have critical or heuristic functions.
Starting from the analytical overview, the evaluation of the quality of the argumentative discourse can be performed. In evaluating the arguments that are put forward in the argumentative discourse, the analyst should (1) check whether the discourse is free from logical and pragmatic inconsistencies, (2) determine whether the propositions put forward are acceptable, (3) evaluate whether the argumentation (can be made) logically valid, (4) check whether the argumentation schemes are appropriately applied, and (5) check for other fallacies.
The concept of the analytical overview can also be used in argument production. Since the analytical overview brings together concisely all the information necessary for evaluating an argumentative discussion, it can be used to check whether the argumentation can stand up to criticism. If weaknesses are found, the argumentation can be adjusted or expanded thus it makes a useful guide for the creation of written or oral argumentation.
The pragma-dialectical theory has been applied to understand several different types of argumentative discourse. For example, it has been used to analyze and evaluate legal argumentation, mediation, negotiation, (parliamentary) debate, interpersonal argumentation, political argumentation, health communication and visual argumentation. [20]