The Foucault-Chomsky debate from a pragma-dialectical perspective

Abstract

This article aims to propose a critical analysis of the debate between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault based on the tools provided by the pragmatic-dialectical approach. In particular, it is intended to contrast the set of stages and discussion rules that Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst point out in their book A systematic theory of argumentation (2011) with the aforementioned debate to define degrees of adequacy and deviation. In a first In the first place, the analysis of this debate from the pragmadialectical stages and rules should provide a measure of the quality of the interventions and the overall result of the discussion. However, a second approach could allow us to review to what extent this set of rules is useful and appropriate for the analysis of specific debates or, at least, for the analysis of this specific debate.