Abstract
A metadialogue is a dialogue about a dialogue or about some dialogues. A dialogue that is not a metadialogue will be called a ground level dialogue. For instance, let the ground level dialogue be an argumentative discussion aiming at the resolution of some dispute. Then disagreement about the correctness of some move in this dialogue will constitute another dispute which the parties again may try to resolve by dialogue. This dialogue will then be a metadialogue relative to the first dialogue. It will be about this first dialogue and perhaps some related dialogues. Also, its primary purpose is to help this first dialogue achieve its end: in this sense the metadialogue will be embedded in the ground level dialogue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aristotle (1965). On Sophistical Refutations, On Coming-to-be and Passing away (translated by E.S. Forster), On the Cosmos (translated by D. J. Furley). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, and London: William Heinemann (Loeb Classical Library). First printed 1955.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Finocchiaro, M. (1980). Galileo and the Art of Reasoning: Rhetorical Foundations of Logic and Scientific Method. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Reidel.
Hamblin, Ch. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002). Profiles of dialogue as an dialectical tool. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 153–167). Amsterdam: Sic Sat and Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Laar, J. A. van (2002). Equivocation in dialectical perspective. In Argumentation and its Applications (CD-ROM, Proceedings from the Conference of The Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, May 17-19, 2001, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario). To be published.
Laar, J. A. van (2003). The Dialectic of Ambiguity: A Contribution to the Study of Argumentation (dissertation). Groningen University. Forthcoming.
McBurney, P., & Parsons, S. (2002). Games that agents play: A formal framework for dialogues between autonomous agents. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 11(3), 315–334. Special Issue on Logic and Games.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1979). How to stop talking to tortoises. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 20, 705–17.
Mackenzie, J. D. (1981). The dialectics of logic. Logique et analyse, n.s. 24, 159–77.
Plato (1961). The Collected Dialogues of Plato Including the Letters (Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, Eds.), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (Bollingen Series 71).
Plato (1991). Protagoras (transl. with notes by C. C. W. Taylor). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krabbe, E.C.W. (2003). Metadialogues. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive