Publication Details

Abstract

According to a rather widespread view, the substantive aim of argumentation consists in resolving differences of opinion between disputing parties. This is the core of the pragma-dialectical definition of argumentation. It is argued that the definition is too narrow, if applied outside the scope of the Pragma-Dialectical Theory. It is not the case that every instance of argumentation has to be aimed at resolving an explicit or implicit difference of opinion. This claim is based on situations in which it does not make good sense to construe the instances of argumentation as having the above aim. An alternative definition of argumentation, which is broader in scope, is suggested. Accordingly, argumentation is aimed at giving reasons for a standpoint in order to reach the communicative objectives that are relevant in a given situation.