| Summary: | This thesis critically reviews the pragma-dialectical approach to the study of argumentation advanced by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 1988, 1992, 2003, 2004) and puts forward a modified version of this framework to provide a better analysis of the special features of political argumentation. This study develops a more applicable model for the analysis and evaluation of actual argumentative discussions, which are often typical of political discourse. The revised framework proposes a number of amendments to the rules of the critical discussion model. Some new types of fallacies arising as a result of violations to these rules are also discussed. One of the main arguments put forward in this thesis is that the aim of political argumentation is not restricted to resolving differences of opinion, and that the role of the audience is critical to understanding political argumentative discourse. The thesis also explores the ways in which violations of the rules of the critical discussion can affect the process of argumentation, and whether such violations always lead to fallacies being committed. The thesis considers the true aims of political argumentation and develops a modified version of the pragma-dialectal framework consisting of a general principle and just seven discussion rules, which takes into account a new conception of the notions of argumentation and fallacy.
|
|---|
