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.
Barth, Elsa M., & Erik C. W. Krabbe. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter.
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.
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.
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.
Brown, Penelope, & Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Campbell, George. (1963). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. L. Bitzer (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. (1948). De Oratore, Books I-II. E. W. Sutton (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Clark, Catherine L., Phillip R. Shaver, & Matthew F. Abrahams. (1999). Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 251, 709–722.
Dynel, Marta. (2016). Conceptualizing conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research 121, 117–147.
Eelen, Gino. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
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.
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 Sat
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht et al.: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert. (2012). Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart, & Meuffels, Bert. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Rob Grootendorst. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, & Scott Jacobs. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Peter Houtlosser. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Peter Houtlosser. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Peter Houtlosser. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, & Peter Houtlosser. (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.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bert Meuffels, & Mariël Verburg. (2000). The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology 191, 416–435.
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.
Fraser, Bruce. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 141, 219–236.
Fraser, Bruce. (2005). Whither politeness. In: R. Lakoff, & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness (pp. 65–83), Amsterdam u. Philadelphia.
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.
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.
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.
Gu, Yueguo. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 31, 237–257.
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.
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.
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.
Hall, Jeffrey A., & Chong Xing. (2015). The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 391, 41–68.
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.
Haugh, Michael. (2014). (Im)politeness implicatures. Berlin et al: De Gruyter Mouton.
Holmes, Janet, & Stephanie Schnurr. (2005). Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 121–149.
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.
Ide, Sachiko. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women’s language. Lingua 571, 49–89.
Ide, Sachiko. (1989). Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 121, 7–11.
Kant, Immanuel. (2012). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, & J. Timmermann, Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kingwell, Mark. (1993). Is it rational to be polite?The Journal of Philosophy 901, 387–404.
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).
Lakoff, Robin. (1989). The Limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua 81, 101–129.
Lakoff, Robin. (2004). Language and woman’s place: text and commentaries. Mary Buchholtz (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lakoff, Robin. (2005). The politics of nice. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 173–191.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
Leech, G. N. (2007). Politeness: is there an East-West divide?Journal of Politeness Research 31, 167–206.
Leech, Geoffrey N. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locher, Miriam A. (2004). Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Locher, Miriam A., & Richard J. Watts. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research 11, 9–33.
Maier, Robert (Ed.). (1989). Norms in Argumentation: Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988. Dordrecht: Foris.
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.
Mills, Sara. (2003). Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Quintilian, Marcus Fabius. (2001). The Orator’s Education, Books 6–8. D. A. Russel (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Searle, John R. (1969). Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas N., & Krabbe, Erik C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Watts, Richard J. (1989). Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua 81, 131–166.
Watts, Richard J. (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.
Watts, Richard J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Watts, Richard J. (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.
Cited by (5)
Cited by five other publications
Aikin, Scott & John Casey
2022. Fallacies of Meta-argumentation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 55:4 ► pp. 360 ff.
Hoppmann, Michael J.
2022. Reasonable Reconstruction of Socratic Irony in Public Discourse. Argumentation 36:1 ► pp. 101 ff.
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.
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.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 january 2025. 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.