Expanding The Pragmatism Of Pragma-Dialectics In Mediation Procedures With Nl As Pragmatic And Cognitive Tool
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This article builds upon pragma-dialectical studies of argumentation focused on resolving differences of opinion n everyday situations, following the line of Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (1992). By delving into mediation, we draw on Sara Greco’s (2009) research on argumentation and communicative strategies in mediation and conflict management practice. We explore the intersection between pragma-dialectics and neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) to enhance the pragmatism of critical dialogue applied to mediation through NLP tools tailored to each of the main areas of strategic maneuvering. An active role of the mediator agent is presented, along with the successive transformations it undergoes in each phase of critical dialogue. Given the principle of neutrality and impartiality in mediation, we outline the meta-communicative and epistemic ontology of the mediator agent necessary to challenge the difficulty of being a neutral and impartial third party.
Keywords: Pragma-dialectics, critical dialogue, mediation, meta-communication, NLP.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Las obras se dan a conocer en la edición electrónica de la revista bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-NoComercial 4.0 Internacional. Se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que i) se citen la autoría y la fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial y URL de la obra); ii) no se utilicen para fines comerciales; y iii) se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
References
Álvarez, M. & Cabrera, M. (2018). Razones para actuar, Enciclopedia de Filosofía de la Sociedad Española de Filosofía Analítica. http://www.safaweb.es/rapones-para-actuar/.
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265-290.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine.
Bush, R.A.B. & Folger, J.P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Revalorization and Recognition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Delgado de Colmenares, F. (2002). La educación contemporánea entre la racionalidad técnico-instrumental y la emancipación: un intento de aproximación a la obra de Jürgen Habermas. Acción pedagógica, 11(2), 4-12.
Dilts, R. (2004). Coaching, herramientas para el cambio. Barcelona: Ediciones Urano.
Eemeren, F.H. van (1995). A World of Difference: The Rich State of Agumentation Theory. Informal Logic, 17 (2), 144-158.
Eemeren, F.H van (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Eemeren, F.H. van (2012). Maniobras estratégicas en el discurso argumentativo. Traducción de C. Santibáñez y Mª Molina. Madrid/México: CSIC/Plaza y Valdes Editores.
Eemeren, F.H. van (2018). Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Cham: Springer.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. En Eemeren, F.H van & Houtlosser, P. (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, (pp. 131-159). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Gray, B. (2006). Mediation as Framing and Framing within Mediation” In M.S. Herrman (ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation. Bridging Theory, Research and Practice, (pp. 193-216). Malden: Blackwell.
Greco Morasso, S. (2009) Argumentative and Other Communicative Strategies of the Mediation Practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Lugano, Switzerland.
Greco Morasso, S. (2011). Argumentation in Dispute Mediation: A Reasonable Way to Handle Conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Greco Morasso, S. & Jermini-Martinez Soria, C. (2021). “Mediators” reframing as a constitutive element of a reconciliatory argumentative style. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 10 (1), 73-96.
Habermas, J. (1990). Conocimiento e interés. Madrid: Taurus.
Habermas, J. (1999). Teoría de la acción comunicativa, I. Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social. Madrid: Taurus.
Habermas, J. (2007). Ciencia y técnica como “ideología”. Madrid: Cátedra.
Knight, S. (2009). NLP at Work: The Essence of Excellence. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Kolb, D.M. (1983). The Mediators. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kusch, R. (1976). Geocultura del hombre americano. Buenos Aires: Fernando García Cambeiro.
Moore, C. (1995). El proceso de mediación. Métodos prácticos para la resolución de conflictos. Buenos Aires: Granica.
O’Connor, J. & Lages, A. (2004). Coaching con PNL. Barcelona: Ediciones Urano.
Putnam, L.L. (2004). Transformation and critical moments in negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 20(2), 275-295.
Rigotti, E. & Greco Morasso, S. (2019). Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer.
Saposnek, D.T. (1983): Mediating Child Custody Disputes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Shapiro, D., Drieghe, R. & Brett, J. (1985). Mediator behaviour and the outcome of mediation. Journal of Social Issues, 41(2), 101-114.
Tindale, C.W. (1999). Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: SUNY Press.
Tindale, C.W. (2015). The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Üzelgün, M.A., Küçükural, Ö. & Oruç, R. (2020) Four approaches in argumentation analysis: A review and comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Connectist: Istanbul University Journal of Communication Sciences, 59, 265-297.
Von Glasersfeld, E. (1996). Aspectos del constructivismo radical. En M. Pakman (comp.), Construcciones de la experiencia humana. Vol. I, (pp. 23-49). Barcelona: Gedisa.
Wake, L. (2010). NLP Principles in Practice. London: Ecademy Press.
Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.