Publication Details

Abstract

Zouhar (2020) offers a critique of the pragma-dialectical definition of argumentation, drawing on model dialogues between cooperative speakers. I argue that this critique is unfounded. The dialogues in question do not constitute counterexamples, as the pragma-dialectical definition does not require the presence of an opponent, the controversiality of the defended proposition, or even the preexistence of a clash of opinions. I further compare the aims and values embedded in the pragma-dialectical definition with those articulated in Zouhar’s general definition of argumentation. I contend that the difference between the two is merely a matter of formulation and that both definitions capture an identical underlying concept of argumentation in the same redundant fashion.