Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Within Pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac

Within Pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac M. A. VAN REES Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of Amsterdam The Netherlands E-mail: m.a.vanrees@uva.nl In his interesting contribution, Daniel Bonevac raises a number of chal- lenging and important issues. In what follows, I want to enter the discus- sion with regard to three of them: the question whether pragma-dialectics can deal with multi-agent discourses, the goal of argumentation, and the relation between defeasibility and fallacies. On the matter of multi-agent discourses, I agree with Bonevac that an adequate theory of argumentation must be able to take them into account. But I don’t share his fear that the theoretical definitions adopted in pragma- dialectics do not permit this. First of all, let us be clear about this: the terms protagonist and antagonist refer to roles that participants in a critical dis- cussion may take. They do not refer to persons. So several people may par- ticipate in a discussion, some of which may be protagonist of one particular standpoint, while others may take the role of antagonist of this standpoint and/or protagonist of opposing standpoints. The question then is – and that seems to be the question at issue – whether multi-party discussions can be http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation Springer Journals

Within Pragma-dialectics: Comments on Bonevac

Argumentation , Volume 17 (4) – Oct 6, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/within-pragma-dialectics-comments-on-bonevac-ANbZLXwEuR

References (3)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Subject
Philosophy; Logic; Communication Studies; Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History; Political Communication
ISSN
0920-427X
eISSN
1572-8374
DOI
10.1023/A:1026312519106
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

M. A. VAN REES Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric University of Amsterdam The Netherlands E-mail: m.a.vanrees@uva.nl In his interesting contribution, Daniel Bonevac raises a number of chal- lenging and important issues. In what follows, I want to enter the discus- sion with regard to three of them: the question whether pragma-dialectics can deal with multi-agent discourses, the goal of argumentation, and the relation between defeasibility and fallacies. On the matter of multi-agent discourses, I agree with Bonevac that an adequate theory of argumentation must be able to take them into account. But I don’t share his fear that the theoretical definitions adopted in pragma- dialectics do not permit this. First of all, let us be clear about this: the terms protagonist and antagonist refer to roles that participants in a critical dis- cussion may take. They do not refer to persons. So several people may par- ticipate in a discussion, some of which may be protagonist of one particular standpoint, while others may take the role of antagonist of this standpoint and/or protagonist of opposing standpoints. The question then is – and that seems to be the question at issue – whether multi-party discussions can be

Journal

ArgumentationSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 6, 2004

There are no references for this article.