Thus, the pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a complex speech act that occurs as part of natural language activities and has specific communicative goals.
In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is viewed as a communicative and interactional discourse phenomenon that is to be studied from a normative as well as a descriptive perspective.
[2] To allow for the systematic integration of the pragmatic and dialectical dimensions in the study of argumentation, the pragma-dialectical theory uses four meta-theoretical principles as its point of departure: functionalization, socialization, externalization and dialectification.
In the concluding stage, the discussion parties evaluate to what extent their initial difference of opinion has been resolved and in whose favor.
The model also defines the nature and distribution of the speech acts that play a constructive part in the various stages of the resolution process.
[8] Parties involved in a difference of opinion "maneuver strategically" to simultaneously realize their dialectical and their rhetorical aims.
In each of the critical discussion stages there is a rhetorical goal that corresponds with the dialectical goal and interlocutors can make use of three analytical aspects to balance effectiveness and reasonableness: making an opportune selection from the topical potential available at the stage concerned, approaching the audience effectively, and carefully exploiting presentational means.