In the study of argumentation there is a sharp and ideological separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which needs to be remedied. The authors show how the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation can be instrumental in bridging the gap. By adopting a research programme that involves engaging in ‘normative pragmatics’, not only the critical normative and the empirical descriptive dimensions of the study of argumentation can be brought together, but also the dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives. In the research programme, which includes philosophical, theoretical, analytical, empirical and practical components, dialectical and rhetorical perspectives are articulated in each component. The authors make clear that the two perspectives can be reconciled with the help of the notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring’. Strategic manoeuvring, which is inherent in argumentative discourse, is aimed at reconciling the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical aims.
2016. Judging the implications of a concession: Conversational distance and belief bias effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69:6 ► pp. 1129 ff.
Walsh, Lynda
2013. Resistance and Common Ground as Functions of Mis/aligned Attitudes. Written Communication 30:4 ► pp. 458 ff.
Nielsen, Jan Alexis
2012. Co-opting Science: A preliminary study of how students invoke science in value-laden discussions. International Journal of Science Education 34:2 ► pp. 275 ff.
Nielsen, Jan Alexis
2012. Science in discussions: An analysis of the use of science content in socioscientific discussions. Science Education 96:3 ► pp. 428 ff.
Nielsen, Jan Alexis
2012. Arguing from Nature: The role of ‘nature’ in students’ argumentations on a socio-scientific issue. International Journal of Science Education 34:5 ► pp. 723 ff.
Nielsen, Jan Alexis
2013. Dialectical Features of Students’ Argumentation: A Critical Review of Argumentation Studies in Science Education. Research in Science Education 43:1 ► pp. 371 ff.
Ricco, Robert B. & Anthony Nelson Sierra
2011. Individual Differences in the Interpretation of Commitment in Argumentation. Argumentation 25:1 ► pp. 37 ff.
Mohammed, Dima
2008. Institutional Insights for Analysing Strategic Manoeuvring in the British Prime Minister’s Question Time. Argumentation 22:3 ► pp. 377 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 december 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.