In Context

Frans H. van Eemeren University of Amsterdam

Abstract

‘In Context’ is aimed at giving contextualization its rightful place in the study of argumentation. First, Frans H. van Eemeren explains the crucial role of context in a reconstructive analysis of argumentative discourse. He distinguishes four levels of contextualization. Second, he situates his approach to context in the field of argumentation studies by comparing it with Walton’s approach. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing clearly between a normatively motivated theoretical ideal model and empirically-based communicative activity types. Third, van Eemeren concentrates on the ‘macro-level’ of contextualization: contextualization in institutionalized communicative activity types. He makes clear that the macro-context of a communicative activity type can be characterized argumentatively by describing the disctinctive features of the empirical counterparts of the four stages of a critical discussion in the activity type concerned. Fourth, he points out what the consequences of the macrocontextualization of argumentative discourse in a certain communicative activity type are for the strategic maneuvering that may takes place and the identification of fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. Fifth, van Eemeren draws some general conclusions regarding the role of contextualization in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse.

Journal
Argumentation
Published
2011-05-01
DOI
10.1007/s10503-011-9211-1
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Hybrid
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cites in this index (4)

  1. Argumentation
  2. Argumentation
  3. Argumentation
  4. Argumentation
Also cites 16 works outside this index ↓
  1. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering
  2. Methodology: Foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences
  3. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering
  4. Hall, P.A., and R.C.R. Taylor. 1996. Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political studies…
    Political studies  
  5. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis
  6. March, J.G., and J.P. Olsen. 1984. The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The Am…
    The American Political Science Review  
  7. Mohammed, D. 2009a. The honourable gentleman should make up his mind. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations …
  8. Ross, W.H., and D.E. Conlon. 2000. Hybrid forms of third-party dispute resolution: Theoretical implications o…
    Academy of Management Review  
  9. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering
  10. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory…
  11. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discuss…
  12. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2007. The contextuality of fallacies. Informal Logic 27(1): 59–67.
    Informal Logic  
  13. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-diale…
  14. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument
  15. The discourse of politics in action. Politics as usual
  16. Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982