Volume 6, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


When engaging with each other, discussants navigate a complex set of communicative norms that aim at very different goals. Within argumentation theory naturally the most studied set of norms are those aiming at reasonableness, of which I take the pragma-dialectical rule set to be a representative example. They are however far from the only norms that guide communicative behavior. This paper offers an analysis of the areas of intersection and potential conflict of reasonableness (as understood by pragma-dialectics) with other communicative norms in general and rules of politeness (as presented by Geoffrey Leech) in particular.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Barth, Elsa M. , & Erik C. W. Krabbe
    (1982) From Axiom to Dialogue. Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110839807
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110839807 [Google Scholar]
  2. Boghossian, Paul
    (2015) Rules, Norms and Principles: A Conceptual Framework, In: M. Araszkiewicz , P. Banaś , T. Gizbert-Studnicki , & K. Płeszka (Eds.): Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. (pp.3–11), Cham et al.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, Penelope
    (2001) Politeness and language. In: N. J. Smelser , & P. B. Baltes (Eds.): International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol.17, (pp.11620–11624), Oxford: Elsevier Science. doi: 10.1016/B0‑08‑043076‑7/03044‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/03044-8 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope , & Stephen Levinson
    (1978) Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and Politeness (pp.56–289), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Campbell, George
    (1963) The Philosophy of Rhetoric. L. Bitzer (Ed.). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cicero, Marcus Tullius
    (1948) De Oratore, Books I-II. E. W. Sutton (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clark, Catherine L. , Phillip R. Shaver , & Matthew F. Abrahams
    (1999) Strategic behaviors in romantic relationship initiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin25, 709–722. doi: 10.1177/0146167299025006006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006006 [Google Scholar]
  9. Dynel, Marta
    (2016) Conceptualizing conversational humour as (im)politeness: The case of film talk. Journal of Politeness Research12, 117–147. doi: 10.1515/pr‑2015‑0023
    https://doi.org/10.1515/pr-2015-0023 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eelen, Gino
    (2001) A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans H. van
    (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  12. van Eemeren, Frans H.
    (2015) From ideal model of critical discussion to situated argumentative discourse: the step-by-step development of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.127–148). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Garssen, Bart , & Meuffels, Bert
    (2007) Convergent operations in empirical ad hominem research. In F. H. van Eemeren , J. A. Blair , C. A. Willard , & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. (pp.367–373). Amsterdam: Sic Sat
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2009) Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2614‑9
  15. (2012) Effectiveness through reasonableness. Preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research. Argumentation, 26(1), 33–53. doi: 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9234‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9234-7 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2015a) The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory empirically interpreted. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.757–769). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015b) Effectiveness through reasonableness: a pragma-dialectical perspective. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.771–791). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_42
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_42 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2015c) The disguised abusive ad hominem empirically investigated: strategic maneuvering with direct personal attacks. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.793–811). Dordrecht et al.: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eemeren, Frans H. van , & Rob Grootendorst
    (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Rob Grootendorst , Sally Jackson , & Scott Jacobs
    (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eemeren, Frans H. van , & Peter Houtlosser
    (2002a) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren , & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp.131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. (2002b) Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren , & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp.13–28). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015a) The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.111–126). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_6 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2015b) The case of pragma-dialectics. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.149–180). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_8 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2015c) How to respond to fallacious moves?In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Reasonableness and effectiveness in argumentative discourse (pp.631–641). Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑20955‑5_33
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_33 [Google Scholar]
  26. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Bert Meuffels , & Mariël Verburg
    (2000) The (un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology19, 416–435. doi: 10.1177/0261927X00019004002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X00019004002 [Google Scholar]
  27. Eemeren, Frans H. van , Bart Garssen , Erik C. W. Krabbe , Francisca Snoeck Henkemans , Bart Verheij , & Jean H. M. Wagemans
    (2014) Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht et al.: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fraser, Bruce
    (1990) Perspectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics14, 219–236. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90081‑N
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-N [Google Scholar]
  29. (2005) Whither politeness. In: R. Lakoff , & S. Ide (Eds.), Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness (pp.65–83), Amsterdam u. Philadelphia. doi: 10.1075/pbns.139.07fra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.139.07fra [Google Scholar]
  30. Garssen, Bart
    (2008) Seemingly unreasonable ad hominem fallacies and legitimate personal attacks. In T. Suzuki , T. Kato , & A. Kubota (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. (pp.66–69). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Goffman, Erving
    (1967) On face-work. In: E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior (pp.5–45), New York: Pantheon Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Grice, H. Paul
    (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole , & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3 (pp.41–58). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Gu, Yueguo
    (1990) Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics3, 237–257. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(90)90082‑O
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90082-O [Google Scholar]
  34. Hage, Jaap
    (2015) Separating Rules from Normativity, In: M. Araszkiewicz , P. Banaś , T. Gizbert-Studnicki , & K. Płeszka (Eds.): Problems of Normativity, Rules and Rule-Following. (pp.13–29), Cham et al.: Springer.
  35. Hall, Jeffrey A.
    (2013) The five flirting styles: Use the science of flirting to attract the love you really want. Don Mills, Ontario, CA: Harlequin Nonfiction.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hall, Jeffrey A. , Steve Carter , Michael J. Cody , & Julie M. Albright
    (2010) Individual Differences in the Communication of Romantic Interest: Development of the Flirting Styles Inventory. Communication Quarterly58, 365–393. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2010.524874
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.524874 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hall, Jeffrey A. , & Chong Xing
    (2015) The Verbal and Nonverbal Correlates of the Five Flirting Styles. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior39, 41–68. doi: 10.1007/s10919‑014‑0199‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-014-0199-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hamblin, Charles
    (1970) Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Haugh, Michael
    (2011) Humour, face and im/politeness in getting acquainted. In: B. L. Davies , M. Haugh , & A. J. Merrison (Eds.), Situated Politeness (pp.165–184), London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014) (Im)politeness implicatures. Berlin et al: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Holmes, Janet , & Stephanie Schnurr
    (2005) Politeness, humor and gender in the workplace: Negotiating norms and identifying contestation. Journal of Politeness Research1, 121–149. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.121 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hoppmann, Michael
    (2008) Pragmatische Aspekte der Kommunikation: Höflichkeit und Ritualisierung. In U. Fix , A. Gardt , & J. Knape (Eds.), Handbuch der Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft (HSK 31.1). Rhetorik und Stilistik. Vol.I. (pp.826–836). Berlin et al: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Ide, Sachiko
    (1982) Japanese sociolinguistics: politeness and women’s language. Lingua57, 49–89. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(82)90009‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(82)90009-2 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1989) Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua12, 7–11. doi: 10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.7
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1993.12.1.7 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kant, Immanuel
    (2012) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ( M. Gregor , & J. Timmermann , Eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kingwell, Mark
    (1993) Is it rational to be polite?The Journal of Philosophy90, 387–404. doi: 10.2307/2940877
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2940877 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lakoff, Robin
    (1973) The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p’s and q’s. In: C. Corum , T. C. Smith-Stark , & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (pp.292–305).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. (1989) The Limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse. Multilingua8, 101–129. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.101
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.101 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2004) Language and woman’s place: text and commentaries. Mary Buchholtz (Ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2005) The politics of nice. Journal of Politeness Research1, 173–191. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  51. Lakoff, R. , & S. Ide
    (2005) Broadening the Horizon of Linguistic Politeness. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.139
  52. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    (1983) Principles of Pragmatics. Longman, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Leech, G. N.
    (2007) Politeness: is there an East-West divide?Journal of Politeness Research3, 167–206. doi: 10.1515/PR.2007.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/PR.2007.009 [Google Scholar]
  54. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    (2014) The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  55. Locher, Miriam A.
    (2004) Power and Politeness in Action: Disagreements in Oral Communication. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110926552
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110926552 [Google Scholar]
  56. Locher, Miriam A. , & Richard J. Watts
    (2005) Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research1, 9–33. doi: 10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2005.1.1.9 [Google Scholar]
  57. Maier, Robert
    (Ed.) (1989) Norms in Argumentation: Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988. Dordrecht: Foris.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Matthews, Jacqueline K. , Jeffrey T. Hancock , & Phillip J. Dunham
    (2006) The Roles of Politeness and Humor in the Asymmetry of Affect in Verbal Irony, Discourse Processes41, 3–24. doi: 10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4101_2 [Google Scholar]
  59. Mills, Sara
    (2003) Gender and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615238
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615238 [Google Scholar]
  60. Quintilian, Marcus Fabius
    (2001) The Orator’s Education, Books 6–8. D. A. Russel (Transl.). Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Searle, John R.
    (1969) Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  62. Walton, Douglas N. , & Krabbe, Erik C. W.
    (1995) Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Watts, Richard J.
    (1989) Relevance and relational work: Linguistic politeness as politic behavior. Multilingua8, 131–166. doi: 10.1515/mult.1989.8.2‑3.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.131 [Google Scholar]
  64. (1992) Linguistic politeness and politic verbal behaviour: Reconsidering claims for universality. In: R. J. Watts , S. Ide , & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. (pp.43–69), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. (2003) Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511615184
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615184 [Google Scholar]
  66. (2005) Linguistic politeness research: quo vadis?In: R. J. Watts , S. Ide , & K. Ehlich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. 2nd ed. (pp.xi–xlvii), Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110199819.1.131
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199819.1.131 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; communicative norms; critical discussion; maxims; politeness; reasonableness
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error