Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 6:2 (2017) ► pp.220–246

Competition and conflict between communicative norms

Is it reasonable to be polite?

| Northeastern University

When engaging with each other, discussants navigate a complex set of communicative norms that aim at very different goals. Within argumentation theory naturally the most studied set of norms are those aiming at reasonableness, of which I take the pragma-dialectical rule set to be a representative example. They are however far from the only norms that guide communicative behavior. This paper offers an analysis of the areas of intersection and potential conflict of reasonableness (as understood by pragma-dialectics) with other communicative norms in general and rules of politeness (as presented by Geoffrey Leech) in particular.

Keywords: argumentation, communicative norms, critical discussion, maxims, politeness, reasonableness
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Speaking about rules and norms
    • Types of norms
    • Norms and sanctions
    • Scope of norms in communication
  • 3.Norms of communication
    • Reasonableness
    • Persuasion
    • Humor
    • Courtship
    • Politeness
    • 3.1Dialogue types and communicative activity types
    • 3.2Interaction of competing norms
    • 3.3Norm violations and fallacies
  • 4.Is it reasonable to be polite?
    • 4.1The choice of representative rules and disclaimers
    • 4.2Politeness according to Leech vs reasonableness according to pragma-dialectics
    • 4.3Dealing with potential areas of inter-norm conflict
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 27 October 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.05hop
References
Barth, Elsa M., & Erik C. W. Krabbe
(1982) From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boghossian, Paul
(2015) Rules, Norms and Principles: A Conceptual Framework, In: M. Araszkiewicz, P. Banaś, T. Gizbert-Studnicki, & K. Płeszka (Eds.): Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. (pp. 3–11), Cham et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope
(2001) Politeness and language. In: N. J. Smelser, & P. B. Baltes (Eds.): International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 171, (pp. 11620–11624), Oxford: Elsevier Science. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, & Stephen Levinson
(1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp. 56–289), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campbell, George
(1963) The Philosophy of Rhetoric. L. Bitzer (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius
(1948) De Oratore, Books I-II. E. W. Sutton (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Catherine L., Phillip R. Shaver, & Matthew F. Abrahams
(1999) Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 251, 709–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dynel, Marta
(2016) Conceptualizing conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research 121, 117–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eelen, Gino
(2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van
(2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H.
(2015) From ideal model of critical discussion to situated argumentative discourse: the step-by-step development of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 127–148). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert
(2007) Convergent operations in empirical ad hominem research. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp. 367–373). Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar
(2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015a) The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 757–769). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
(2015b) Effectiveness through reasonableness: a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 771–791). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015c) The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 793–811). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Rob Grootendorst
(2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, & Scott Jacobs
(1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Peter Houtlosser
(2002a) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002b) Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
(2015a) The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 111–126). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) The case of pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 149–180). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015c) How to respond to fallacious moves? In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp. 631–641). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bert Meuffels, & Mariël Verburg
(2000) The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology 191, 416–435. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij, & Jean H. M. Wagemans
(2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht et al.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
(1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 141, 219–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Whither politeness. In: R. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness (pp. 65–83), Amsterdam u. Philadelphia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garssen, Bart
(2008) Seemingly unreasonable ad hominem fallacies and legitimate personal attacks. In T. Suzuki, T. Kato, & A. Kubota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. (pp. 66–69). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1967) On face-work. In: E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (pp. 5–45), New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
(1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 31 (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gu, Yueguo
(1990) Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 237–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hage, Jaap
(2015) Separating Rules from Normativity, In: M. Araszkiewicz, P. Banaś, T. Gizbert-Studnicki, & K. Płeszka (Eds.): Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. (pp. 13–29), Cham et al.: Springer.Google Scholar
Hall, Jeffrey A.
(2013) The five flirting styles: Use the science of flirting to attract the love you really want. Don Mills, Ontario, CA: Harlequin Nonfiction.Google Scholar
Hall, Jeffrey A., Steve Carter, Michael J. Cody, & Julie M. Albright
(2010) Individual Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory. Communication Quarterly 581, 365–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Jeffrey A., & Chong Xing
(2015) The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 391, 41–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles
(1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
(2011) Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In: B. L. Davies, M. Haugh, & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated Politeness (pp. 165–184), London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2014) (Im)politeness implicatures. Berlin et al: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet, & Stephanie Schnurr
(2005) Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 121–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoppmann, Michael
(2008) Pragmatische Aspekte der Kommunikation: Höflichkeit und Ritualisierung. In U. Fix, A. Gardt, & J. Knape (Eds.), Handbuch der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK 31.1). Rhetorik und Stilistik. Vol. I1. (pp. 826–836). Berlin et al: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ide, Sachiko
(1982) Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women’s language. Lingua 571, 49–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989) Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 121, 7–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel
(2012) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, & J. Timmermann, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kingwell, Mark
(1993) Is it rational to be polite? The Journal of Philosophy 901, 387–404. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
(1973) The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In: C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp. 292–305).Google Scholar
(1989) The Limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 81, 101–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Language and woman’s place: text and commentaries. Mary Buchholtz (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
(2005) The politics of nice. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 173–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, R., & S. Ide
(2005) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
(1983) Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Leech, G. N.
(2007) Politeness: is there an East-West divide? Journal of Politeness Research 31, 167–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
(2014) The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A.
(2004) Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Locher, Miriam A., & Richard J. Watts
(2005) Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 9–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maier, Robert
(Ed.) (1989) Norms in Argumentation: Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Jacqueline K., Jeffrey T. Hancock, & Phillip J. Dunham
(2006) The Roles of Politeness and Humor in the Asymmetry of Affect in Verbal Irony, Discourse Processes 411, 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, Sara
(2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quintilian, Marcus Fabius
(2001) The Orator’s Education, Books 6–8. D. A. Russel (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
(1969) Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., & Krabbe, Erik C. W.
(1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Watts, Richard J.
(1989) Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 81, 131–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992) Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In: R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. (pp. 43–69), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Linguistic politeness research: quo vadis? In: R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. (pp. xi–xlvii), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Aikin, Scott & John Casey
2022. Fallacies of Meta-argumentation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 55:4 ► pp. 360 ff. DOI logo
Hoppmann, Michael J.
2022. Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse. Argumentation 36:1 ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo
Tseronis, Assimakis
2021. How Face Threatening Are Disagreement Moves? A Proposal for an Integration of Insights from Politeness Theory into Argumentation Theory. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H.
2021. Characterizing Argumentative Style: The Case of KLM and the Destructed Squirrels. In The Language of Argumentation [Argumentation Library, 36], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Argumentative Style [Argumentation in Context, 20], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.