Frans Hendrik van Eemeren is een Nederlandse academicus wiens werk zich richt op argumentatietheorie. Samen met Rob Grootendorst ontwikkelde hij de pragmadialectische benadering, die argumentatie in de praktijk analyseert en evalueert. Dit raamwerk beschouwt argumentatie als een complexe spraakhandeling binnen natuurlijke taalactiviteiten, met specifieke communicatieve doelen. Zijn onderzoek biedt diepgaande inzichten in de dynamiek van argumentatieve discourse.
Overtuigend schrijven is een doelgerichte methode waarmee de student systematisch verschillende soorten betogende teksten leert schrijven.Het boek vertaalt voor de student de nieuwste theoretische inzichten van de moderne argumentatieleer naar de praktische toepassing ervan in verschillende tekstgenres.
Empirical Research Concerning the Pragma-Dialectical Discussion Rules
The authors present their systematic empirical research on the conventional validity of Pragma-Dialectical discussion rules, grounded in a well-defined theoretical framework. They detail a series of experimental tests conducted to evaluate these rules, providing insights into their effectiveness and applicability in discussions.
This book provides a clear and comprehensive introduction to argumentation theory from a pragma-dialectical perspective. It covers key topics such as the discipline of argumentation, principles of pragma-dialectics, critical discussions, fallacies, and strategic maneuvering, making it accessible for scholars and advanced students.
Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics
This volume features 50 contributions exploring reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentation theory. It covers van Eemeren's perspectives, pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, fallacies, and the analysis of argumentative discourse. It also includes empirical research findings through experimental and qualitative studies.
"Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness" by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels explores the validity of pragma-dialectical discussion rules through over a decade of empirical research. The authors examine how ordinary arguers perceive fallacies versus non-fallacies, offering insights into the interplay between theoretical and practical reasonableness.
A Critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies