Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue

Abstract Both conversation analysis (CA) and extended pragma-dialectics (PD) share an interest in empirical, data-driven analysis of argumentative exchanges, a focus on sequential organization, and context-sensitivity. While cross-fertilization between CA and argumentation analysis in general took place, no full parallel analysis with CA and PD, let alone with extended PD was carried out. In this paper by CA and PD researchers, we compare how each approach interprets the same Dutch medical consultation and assess systematically how both approaches differ and complement each other. We will focus on disagreement management and doctor-patient decision-making. Our findings suggest that, despite the tensions, the combination of these approaches offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactional dynamics of argumentation, shedding light on, e.g., the enactment of institutional roles, the normative consequences of turn-management, and varied facets of strategic maneuvering.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Published
2026-04-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.25036.van
Primary Topic
Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue

Keun Young Sliedrecht, Evi Dalmaijer, Lotte van Poppel, Roosmaryn Pilgram
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
article

Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue

Keun Young Sliedrecht, Evi Dalmaijer, Lotte van Poppel, Roosmaryn Pilgram
article en

Abstract

Abstract Both conversation analysis (CA) and extended pragma-dialectics (PD) share an interest in empirical, data-driven analysis of argumentative exchanges, a focus on sequential organization, and context-sensitivity. While cross-fertilization between CA and argumentation analysis in general took place, no full parallel analysis with CA and PD, let alone with extended PD was carried out. In this paper by CA and PD researchers, we compare how each approach interprets the same Dutch medical consultation and assess systematically how both approaches differ and complement each other. We will focus on disagreement management and doctor-patient decision-making. Our findings suggest that, despite the tensions, the combination of these approaches offers a more comprehensive understanding of the interactional dynamics of argumentation, shedding light on, e.g., the enactment of institutional roles, the normative consequences of turn-management, and varied facets of strategic maneuvering.

Journal of Argumentation in Context
Leiden University (NL), Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), University of Groningen (NL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Conversation analysis and extended pragma-dialectics in dialogue — Keun Young Sliedrecht, Evi Dalmaijer, et al. · Journal of Argumentation in Context (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS