Title of the Paper [16 point font]


© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Characterizing Reflective Diary Writing as an 

Argumentative Activity Type 

IVA SVAČINOVÁ 

Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences 

University of Hradec Králové 
Rokitanského 62, Hradec Králové 

Czech Republic 

iva.svacinova@uhk.cz 
  
Abstract: This paper is focused on 

the practice of unsolicited, reflective 

diary writing as an act of externaliz-

ing internal dialogue. I suggest that it 

should be analyzed as an argumenta-

tive practice from the point of view of 

pragma-dialectics. In the first part of 

the paper, I demonstrate that internal 

communication can be examined from 

the perspective of pragma-dialectics 
because it is in line with its meta-

theoretical principles (especially 

socialization and externalization). In 

the second part, I suggest that reflec-

tive diary writing should be conceived 

of as an argumentative activity type. I 

show that this practice is a conven-

tionalized activity type that is precon-

ditioned by implicit norms governing 

the conduct of argumentation. 

Résumé: Cet article se concentre sur 

la pratique de l'écriture non sollicitée 

et réfléchie d'un journal comme un 

acte d'extériorisation du dialogue 

interne. Je propose qu'elle soit analy-

sée comme une pratique argumenta-

tive du point de vue de la pragma-

dialectique. Dans la première partie 

de l'article, je démontre que la com-

munication interne peut être examinée 
du point de vue de la pragma-

dialectique parce qu'elle est conforme 

à ses principes méta-théoriques (en 

particulier la socialisation et l'exté-

riorisation). Dans la deuxième partie, 

je suggère que la rédaction d'un 

journal réflexif soit conçue comme un 

type d'activité argumentative. Je 

montre que cette pratique est un type 

d'activité conventionnalisé qui est 

préconditionné par des normes im-

plicites régissant la conduite de 
l'argumentation. 

 

Keywords: argumentative activity type, argumentative characterization, inter-

nal communication, pragma-dialectics, reflective diary writing 

1. Introduction 

 

Diary writing is usually conceived of as an activity through which 

diarists record their personal experiences, observations, reflec-

mailto:iva.svacinova@uhk.cz


706 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

tions, or comments from a first-person perspective in the moment 

of writing (see van der Wal and Rutten 2013; Fothergill 1995; 

Paperno 2004). It is typically thought of as the diarist’s written 

monologue: van der Wal and Rutten (2013, p. 1, fn. 1) conceive of 

it as writing in which the diarist’s “I” is continuously present in 

the text as the writing and describing subject; Gillespie (1999, p. 

623) considers it an affirmation of the authorial “I,” i.e., a forth-

right and uncensored expression of the diarist’s right to her or his 

own persona, written by and for the “self.” In this paper, however, 

I adopt an alternative perspective according to which diary writing 

can also be conceived of as a specific type of intrapersonal com-

munication: communication in which the diarist conducts an inter-

nal dialogue from various I-positions and externalizes this dia-

logue through the process of writing (see van Dijck 2004, An-

droutsopoulou et al. 2020; Geheran 2011; Zittoun and Gillespie 

2012; Zittoun 2014; Svačinová 2021). 

I am concerned specifically with the activity of so-called unso-

licited reflective diary writing,1 wherein the diarist writes a private 

diary in an effort to process some incomprehensible experience 

(see Lejeune 2009, p. 195; Fothergill 1995, pp. 84-85; Zammuner 

2001, p. 4; Zittoun and Gillespie 2012, pp. 12-13). Reflective diary 

writing, from this perspective, can be conceived of as a specific 

variant of intrapersonal communication in which the diarist exter-

nalizes a specific type of internal dialogue: by presenting, con-

fronting, comparing, and criticizing various views and possible 

interpretations from different I-positions, the diarist tries to find 

the most appropriate and most satisfactory interpretation of a given 

experience. Here, I consider the argumentative character of this 

activity: the diarist deals with a difference of opinion regarding the 

interpretation of the given experience, takes on, through different 

I-positions, the role of multiple communication as well as discus-

sion partners, and presents and confronts different interpretations 

of the given experience in an effort to reach a solution to the inter-

nal difference of opinion. 

 
1 In this paper, I also refer to this practice with the abbreviated term reflective 

diary writing. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 707 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

This paper aims at characterizing the activity of reflective diary 

writing as a type of argumentative practice, thus enabling the study 

of this phenomenon from the point of view of argumentation 

theory, particularly pragma-dialectics (see van Eemeren and 

Grootendorst 1984; 2004; van Eemeren 2010). I have two goals 

here. First, I intend to show that internal dialogue externalized 

through reflective diary writing can be conceived of as an argu-

mentative discourse from the point of view of pragma-dialectics. 

Although pragma-dialectics has been developed primarily for the 

purpose of analyzing argumentation in social discourses, I believe 

that internal dialogue can be theorized in terms of pragma-

dialectics as it is in line with its meta-theoretical principles. Sec-

ond, I intend to show that reflective diary writing can be conceived 

of as a specific argumentative activity type impacting the course 

and character of critical dialogue from the point of view of prag-

ma-dialectics. I use the tools of extended pragma-dialectics, which 

allow us to describe the argumentative character of a certain type 

of communication practice by identifying its institutional point, 

communicative genre, and the impact of specific conventions on 

the course of individual stages of critical dialogue. I show that 

reflective diary writing is a specifically conventionalized activity 

type that is preconditioned by implicit norms governing the con-

duct of argumentation. 

The structure of the study is as follows: In section 2, I deal with 

the concept of internal dialogue externalized through reflective 

diary writing and show that it aligns with a pragma-dialectical 

perspective, especially with respect to two of its meta-theoretical 

principles: socialization and externalization. In section 3, I present 

the concept of the communicative activity type theoretically and 

then apply this concept to characterize the internal dialogue gener-

ated during unsolicited reflective diary writing. I specify the insti-

tutional point and communicative genre of this communicative 

practice. Through argumentative characterization, I show how the 

generation and externalization of internal dialogue during this 

activity impacts the course and character of argumentation. 

 



708 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

2. Diary writing as an argumentative practice from the point 

of view of pragma-dialectics  

Pragma-dialectics is based on four meta-theoretical principles: 

socialization, externalization, functionalization, and dialec-

tification. These four principles refer to the systematic combina-

tion of pragmatic and dialectical angles in developing pragma-

dialectics: the parallel development of research on communication 

and interaction together with the normative study of argumentative 

steps in rule-governed critical exchanges (see van Eemeren and 

Grootendorst 1984; van Eemeren et al. 1993, p. 13-15; van Eeme-

ren et al. 2014, p. 523). Argumentation is considered to arise in 

response to, or in anticipation of, disagreement with another lan-

guage user (socialization) and is to be regarded as a purposive 

activity (functionalization) that is aimed at solving the disagree-

ment through a rule-governed critical discussion (dialectification), 

by explicitly or implicitly performing speech acts that bring along 

specific commitments to which the discussants can be held (exter-

nalization) (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, pp. 4-18). 

When theorizing about internal dialogue recorded through the 

activity of diary writing from a pragma-dialectical perspective, the 

principles of socialization and externalization especially could 

seem to exclude this activity from being labelled argumentative in 

pragma-dialectical terms. In sections 2.1 and 2.2, I address these 

principles explicitly to demonstrate that research on the activity of 

diary writing as a specific argumentative practice is relevant from 

the perspective of pragma-dialectics. 

2.1 Socialization  

An important feature of the pragma-dialectical approach is the 

focus on argument as a communication and interaction phenome-

non; argumentation is viewed as a bilateral process. It always 

assumes two distinct roles in the argumentative exchange (van 

Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, p. 9). Socialization of argumen-

tation is achieved in pragma-dialectics by the distinction between 

the roles of parties included in the argumentative exchange and by 

considering the speech acts performed in this exchange as part of 

the argumentative dialogue between them. In this sense, the prin-



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 709 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

ciple of socialization does not necessarily presuppose the existence 

of two distinct individuals or groups of individuals conducting a 

dialogue, but generally of two parties capable of accepting differ-

ent argumentation roles. The roles that the parties hold in dialogue 

are associated with positions they have adopted with regard to the 

difference of opinion. Parties accept the roles of protagonist and 

antagonist, and along with those roles, they accept commitments. 

The protagonist accepts a commitment to defend the standpoint, 

respond to potential criticism, and submit additional arguments if 

requested. The antagonist accepts the commitment to raise doubts 

and critically test the sustainability of the standpoint and argu-

ments. Together, they attempt to reach a solution to the difference 

of opinion. 

Theorists of argumentation investigating the character of in-

trapersonal argumentation consider that research on internal argu-

mentation is possible if we think of the individual as being able to 

accept different argumentative roles (see Billig 1996, p. 142; 

Baumtrog 2018; Greco Morasso 2013; Greco 2017, p. 333; Rocci, 

2005, p. 101; Zampa and Perrin 2016, p. 10). Particularly in prag-

ma-dialectics, van Eemeren and Grootendorst explicitly admit that 

internal dialogue can be argumentative:  

 
This [argumentation conceived as a bilateral process] can also ap-

ply where only one person is involved: if a language user doubts 

his own standpoint and as it were tacitly disagrees with himself 

about the acceptability of an expressed opinion, then effectively 
we have two parties adopting different points of view in respect of 

an expressed opinion. This may give rise to an interior dialogue. 

Even in this special case someone has to be convinced and we 
may therefore speak of a bilateral or social process. (van Eemeren 

and Grootendorst 1984, p. 9, italics in original; see also 2004, p. 

120) 

 

When theorizing about the internal dialogue a diarist conducts 

with herself or himself, we consider the diarist as capable of ac-

cepting two different argumentative roles, along with the commit-

ments belonging to those roles. To capture the dialogical character 

of one individual’s mind, it seems useful to utilize the terminolog-

ical apparatus developed by dialogical self theory (Hermans 2001, 



710 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

2003; Hermans and Hermans-Konopka 2010). The idea that the 

process of thinking can be conceived of as a form of dialogical 

communication is based on the concept of “self” put forward by 

Vygotsky and Bakhtin. Vygotsky (1987) hypothesized that inner 

speech is a form of internalized dialogue that people learn in 

childhood; Bakhtin (2006) proposed the concepts of dialogicity 

and polyphony, according to which the self consists of various 

polyphonic dialogues, and beyond these collective dialogues there 

is no general position or perspective. Based on these perspectives, 

dialogical self theory suggests conceiving of the self not as a 

single unit, but rather as being multifaceted and complex. It con-

siders that the self is organized as a dynamic landscape of autono-

mous internal or external2 I-positions that continually influence 

each other through dialogical interchanges (Hermans 2003, p. 90). 

The description of the behavior of I-positions and their mutual 

relations is reflected in dialogical self theory’s analogy between I-

positions and the functioning of a social system. Just like people in 

a social system, I-positions behave in a relatively autonomous 

way: each I-position is endowed with views, memories, wishes, 

motives, interests, and feelings. I-positions are described also from 

the perspective of hierarchical order and power relations: some I-

positions are dominant, others are rather subdued, some are sup-

portive, caring, and confidential, and others may tend to be fearful, 

derogatory, or critical (Hermans 2001; Nir 2012, p. 284, 2016, pp. 

1-2).  

The analogy between the functioning of the self and a social 

system is also used at the level of communication. According to 

Hermans (2001), communicative interactions between I-positions 

are in principle dialogical3 and may be of different forms. For 

 
2 Dialogical self theory distinguishes between what are called internal I-

positions, representing various aspects of the self’s personal identity (I-as-

daughter, I-as-ambitious-worker, etc.) and external I-positions representing 

significant others at different levels of generality (my mother, my employee, my 
religious community, my ethnicity, etc.) (Hermans 2001, p. 252). 
3 Internal dialogic activity is defined by the authors as “engagement in dialogues 

with imagined figures, the simulation of social dialogical relationships in one’s 

own thoughts, and the mutual confrontation of points of view representing 

different I-positions relevant for personal and/or social identity” (Oleś and 

Puchalska-Wasyl 2010, p. 179). 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 711 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

instance, internal voices are “involved in a process of question and 

answer, agreement and disagreement. Each of them has a story to 

tell about his or her own experiences from his or her own stance” 

(Hermans 2001, p. 248). According to Nir (2012, 2016), internal 

dialogue can take the form of internal negotiating designed to 

reach an agreement when both sides have some of the same shared 

interests and other interests that are in opposition (Fisher and Ury 

1981, p. xiii; Nir 2012, p. 287). She develops negotiational self 

theory which suggests that: 

 
just as between people, whenever conflict erupts within the self 

and a decision is called for, the dialogical interchange between I-

positions takes the form of a negotiation process. As the internal 

negotiation unfolds, contrasting I-positions come to the fore-
ground to promote their standpoint, and advocate their unique per-

spective with the aim of influencing the decision. As arguments 

and counterarguments are presented, internal clashes erupt within 
the self. Like self-absorbed actors zealously fighting over the 

limelight, so I-positions battle for their place in the internal land-

scape of the mind. (Nir 2016, p. 2) 

 

Thus, Nir develops the view of internal conflict as a difference of 

opinion between (at least) two I-positions, in which different I-

positions present and defend different standpoints and defend 

themselves against the criticism of other I-positions by presenting 

arguments. In this sense, there is nothing to prevent the conception 

of the internal dialogue as being in accordance with the principle 

of socialization when conceived of as a dialogue conducted by an 

individual from two different I-positions accepting different argu-

mentative roles.  

2.2 Externalization 

The principle of externalization is adopted in pragma-dialectics, 

according to van Eemeren and Grootendorst, in order to avoid 

“unnecessary guesswork about the motives” and “speculating 

about what [language users] think or believe” (1992, p. 10). Ac-

cording to this principle, analysts should leave aside the internal 

states of mind of discussants and should begin the investigation 



712 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

from public commitments arising from language behavior, in 

essence, from the “obligations [that] are created by (explicitly or 

implicitly) performing certain speech acts in a specific context of 

an argumentative discourse or text” (van Eemeren and Grooten-

dorst 2004, p. 54). The principle of externalization is directed 

against approaches that explain argumentation and its effects by 

means of speculation about internal processes in the minds of 

those who are arguing. 

When theorizing about the internal dialogue diarists conduct 

with themselves, we consider it potentially externalizable into a 

verbalized and publicly accessible form based on which the obli-

gations arising from the language behavior of individual partici-

pants of internal communication can be identified and analyzed. 

The key seems to be the use of an appropriate method of externali-

zation of internal dialogue, especially in two senses: (a) the meth-

od of transferring internal dialogue into a verbalizable form in 

which the internal dialogue is accessible to the analyst, and (b) the 

method of externalization of the obligations of I-positions partici-

pating in the internal dialogue. 

When considering the method of externalization into verbalized 

form, it should be mentioned that as Vygotsky showed (Vygotsky 

1987, pp. 235-249; see also Alderson-Day and Fernyhough 2015, 

p. 932), internal communication is different in many respects from 

socially communicable, fully verbalized dialogue. The characteris-

tics depend on the level of internalization. At the level of syntax, 

abbreviation is typical for internal communication, and at the level 

of semantics, a predominance of sense over meaning, development 

of hybrid words signifying complex terms (agglutination), and 

infusion of sense are typical. At higher levels of the process of 

internalization, inner speech can approach “thinking in pure mean-

ings” (Vygotsky 1987, p. 249). Fernyhough, however, shows that 

the transformation process accompanying the process of internali-

zation can also be conceived of as progressing in the opposite 

direction. He considers a process of re-externalization that allows 

inner speech to be externalized into a publicly communicable form 

(2004, p. 55). 

Empirical studies of inner speech in the field of psychology 

(see Aveling et al. 2015; Gillespie et al. 2008; Zittoun and Gilles-



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 713 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

pie 2012) as well as argumentation theory (see Greco Morasso 

2013; Greco 2017; Zampa and Perrin 2016) rely on the assumption 

that inner speech can be transferred into a verbalized form using 

relevant methods. I consider diary writing to be an activity through 

which people naturally externalize their inner dialogues into ver-

balized form. Such a method of externalization can be seen as a 

written version of the so-called think-aloud method that requires 

people to immediately verbalize everything that comes into their 

minds (see Surd-Büchele 2011; Svačinová 2021).  

As shown by Svačinová (2021, pp. 243-244), conceiving of the 

activity of diary writing as a method of externalization of internal 

dialogue and using personal diaries as data to research the charac-

ter of internal dialogue seems promising for three reasons: (i) diary 

writing can be characterized by contemporaneity or by the short 

interval between the internal dialogue and the action of writing it 

down (see Alaszewski 2006a, p. 45; Hyers 2018, p. 70; Gillespie 

1999, p. 621). We can therefore expect that the diary entry reflects 

the true course of the inner interaction, including details that could 

be lost or forgotten if not quickly recorded, such as the switching 

between I-positions and their replicas. (ii) Unsolicited diary writ-

ing arises without the direct intervention or guidance of the re-

searcher, and we can conceive of it as a natural method of exter-

nalization of internal dialogue. (iii) Diaries can be seen as “frozen” 

records of people’s internal dialogues from different historical 

periods. By using diaries as data for research, we have access to 

internal dialogues even from individuals that are inaccessible in 

any other way.4 

When considering the method of externalization of the obliga-

tions of I-positions participating in the internal dialogue, it should 

be understood that according to pragma-dialectics, the obligations 

that can be ascribed to the parties must be externalizable based on 

 
4 Diaries are also commonly considered in psychological—especially in dialogi-
cal self theory—research as data records of diarists’ internal dialogues. In the 

works of dialogical self theorists, diaries figure as material either for analytical 

or illustrative purposes (Hermans 1996, 2001; Gillespie et al. 2008; Geheran 

2011; Androutsopoulou et al. 2020). In research on internal dialogue in argu-

mentation theory, diaries have been used for analytical purposes by Svačinová 

(2021).   



714 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

one of three possibilities: they are (a) externalized by the parties 

themselves in the discourse, (b) externalizable from what has been 

said in the discourse, or (c) externalizable based on other grounds 

that can be understood in the discourse. In the case of diary writ-

ing, (b) seems to be relevant (see van Eemeren et al. 2014, p. 526). 

I consider that the text of a diary, which is the product of external-

ization through diary writing, also reflects the process by which it 

came into being. The text of the diary exploits certain linguistic 

characteristics that allow us to reasonably assume the dialogic 

character of the internal communication and to identify the I-

positions from which the diarist spoke, the type of interactions 

between the I-positions, and the commitments accepted by the 

participating I-positions.  

As pointed out by van Eemeren et al. (2014), in externalizing 

the commitments of the parties, logical as well as pragmatic in-

sights concerning presuppositions and implications or implicatures 

can be exploited. They suggest utilizing a speech act perspective 

for this purpose. For example, the notion of “disagreeing,” which 

is vital for characterizing the differences of opinion and the argu-

mentative commitments of the parties, can be defined as “an oppo-

sition among speech acts interlocked within a common discourse 

activity” (van Eemeren et al. 2014, p. 256). To analyze the text of 

a diary, I suggest following the procedure proposed by Aveling et 

al. (2015). The authors propose a three-step method to analyze 

different I-positions and their interrelations based on linguistic 

characteristics of the text. The three steps consist of identifying 

voices of the self (or internal I-positions), voices of others (or 

external I-positions, inner others), and interacting voices, in es-

sence, determining how the I-positions interact. The authors sug-

gest identifying individual I-positions by examining the text using 

the following questions: “from which I-positions does the self 

speak?”; “what other voices (inner-others) can be heard?”; and 

“what are the interactions between voices of the self?” For each 

step, the authors propose linguistic indicators to identify dialogical 

aspects. For example, to identify internal I-positions, they suggest 

coding all first-person pronouns (singular and plural) as well as 

possessive determiners (Aveling et al. 2015, p. 673-675; see Greco 

2016, p. 63). Aveling et al. also propose guidelines for identifying 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 715 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

conflict situations within the self, that is, for identifying differ-

ences of opinion within the self. The analyst should focus on 

finding the so-called “dialogic knots” in the text: 

 
‘Dialogical knots’ are points of conflict or tension within autodi-
alogue. These are often indicated by words such as ‘but’ or ‘how-

ever’, or by a sudden switching from one voice to another, sug-

gesting underlying tensions within the dialogical Self. (Aveling et 
al. 2015, p. 682) 

 

This method, therefore, allows us to identify individual I-positions 

and the replicas they exchange in dialogical interactions. At the 

same time, this approach allows us to focus specifically on those 

interactions, recording internal differences of opinion between 

individual I-positions.  

3. Diary writing as a communicative activity type 

Pragma-dialectics, in its extended form, contains the idea that the 

conventions of communicative activity types have an impact on 

the possible forms of argumentation (see van Eemeren and Hout-

losser, 2005, 2006; van Eemeren 2010). The use of the extended 

pragma-dialectics model, therefore, enables us to expand our 

understanding of diary writing and consider it to be a specifically 

conventionalized communicative activity type that impacts the 

character of argumentation. 

 Levinson (1992) used the term ‘activity type’ to refer to rule-

governed, institutionalized settings of communication. In pragma-

dialectics, communicative activity types are conceived as 

 
conventionalized practices whose conventionalization serves, 
through the implementation of certain ‘genresʼ of communicative 

activity the institutional needs prevailing in a certain domain of 

communicative activity (van Eemeren 2010, p. 139).  

 

Argumentation theorists have thus far focused predominantly on 

researching interpersonal communication domains: political, legal, 

medical, and scientific domains (see van Eemeren 2016, p. 8). 

Theoretically, however, it is possible—and the initial analogy 



716 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

between interpersonal and internal communication allows it—to 

extend this scope and to also apply the concept of communicative 

activity type to research into the character of intrapersonal com-

munication (see Greco Morasso 2013; Greco 2016, 2017; Zampa 

and Perrin 2016; Svačinová 2021). 

  As explained above, I understand diary writing to be a commu-

nicative activity type that falls under the general domain of in-

trapersonal communication—that is, communication realized by 

the self from different I-positions. The general institutional point 

of this communicative domain is to acquire adequate beliefs or 

decisions through internal communication with different I-

positions. On the more specific level of individual communicative 

activity types, however, particular institutional points can be dis-

tinguished that are instrumental for realizing the specific institu-

tional point of the communicative activity type concerned. 

As was demonstrated by Hermans (2018), different kinds of in-

ternal dialogue with more specific goals can arise in the mind 

using different communicative genres. Hermans distinguishes five 

types of internal dialogue: generative dialogue, negotiation, de-

bate, persuasion, and command (2018, pp. 317, 321). All of these 

types of internal dialogue capture a certain variant of negotiation 

between I-positions, differing in the degree of dominance of the I-

positions and the related a/symmetry of their mutual relations. For 

instance, a generative dialogue is defined by Hermans as “[t]he 

most symmetrical relationship (…) where both positions receive 

full space to become expressed in their own specific qualities with 

no position placed above all other positions on an a priori basis” 

(2018, p. 321). In contrast, a command, which is at the opposite 

end of the spectrum, can be characterized by the dominance of one 

of the I-positions and the suppression of the others: “[t]he com-

mand relation is highly asymmetrical in that one of the participants 

is highly dominant and leaves no space for others to express them-

selves from their own point of view” (Hermans 2018, p. 321).  

Hermans considers that different types of dialogue are chosen 

in response to the need arising from a person’s situation. Accord-

ing to him,  
 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 717 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

the selection of a particular form of dialogue depends on the posi-
tion and situation in which the communicators find themselves. 

Different positions demanded by particular situations require dif-

ferent forms of dialogue (2018, p. 320).   

 

For example, a generative dialogue arises in a situation that re-

quires new meaning to be created, such as in creative thinking, 

reading, or writing. A command, on the other hand, may occur in a 

situation that requires quick decisions to be made, such as a situa-

tion in which behavior that has just been implemented needs to be 

changed, which is perceived as undesirable—for example, the 

decision, “I’ll stop this addiction” is of this sort (see Hermans 

2018, p. 317). In this sense, intrapersonal communication can be 

considered a general communicative domain and the types of inner 

dialogue distinguished by Hermans can be seen as different com-

municative activity types that have been established in this domain 

to achieve specific exigencies of the self (see Svačinová 2021, p. 

250). With regard to these exigencies, different conventions and 

sets of norms and rules that influence the character of the given 

internal communicative practices have been established. 

 Diary writing as an externalized version of internal dialogue 

can be conceived of as a very individualized, hybrid activity that 

can fulfill a number of the diarist’s exigencies. Diaries do not 

capture in some sense “usual” or “prototypical” internal dialogue. 

They record the type of dialogue that arises within a specific con-

text in response to a diarist’s specific exigencies, and they serve as 

a means to meet those exigencies. Lejeune (2009, pp. 194-196) 

distinguishes four functions of diary writing: to express, reflect, 

freeze time, and take pleasure in writing. These functions, howev-

er, may be multiple, as well as interconnected, or they may be 

specifically reflected only in some passages of the diaries.  

Not all forms of diary writing can be conceived of as being ar-

gumentative—for example, diary writing in which the diarist aims 

only to “freeze time” and create a personal “chronicle” is probably 

a completely non-argumentative communicative practice. When 

investigating the argumentative character of diary writing, the 

versions of diary writing in which the diarists attempt to interpret 

an incomprehensible experience (i.e., reflective diary writing) or 



718 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

search for a solution to a life crisis situation (i.e., crisis diary writ-

ing) are particularly relevant. In both cases, we can expect the 

diarist to confront different perspectives and to try to reach agree-

ment between I-positions about the acceptability of the suggested 

standpoint(s). The characterization of crisis diary writing as a 

communicative activity type has been proposed elsewhere (see 

Svačinová 2021).  

In this paper, I focus on unsolicited, reflective diary writing, 

which can be conceived of as a specifically conventionalized 

communicative practice whose argumentative dimensions can be 

examined as an argumentative activity type (van Eemeren and 

Houtlosser 2005; van Eemeren 2010, p. 145). In order to deter-

mine how implicit conventions of this communicative practice 

regulate the conduct of argumentation externalized through reflec-

tive diary writing, it is necessary to (a) define this specific activity 

and (b) specify its conventions and their impact on the character of 

argumentation between I-positions in its individual stages. 

3.1. Reflective diary writing 

Rainer (1980) defines the reflection used in diary writing as “an 

observation of the process of one’s life and writing. It seems to 

occur when you stand back, even if only momentarily, and see 

connections or significances that you had not noticed before” (p. 

68). Zammuner (2001) describes the reflective function of diary 

writing as “allowing the person to elaborate reality by noting 

thoughts, comments, speculations (including not-so-personal ones) 

about events, activities, etc.” (p. 4).  Similarly, Zittoun and Gilles-

pie (2012) refer to diary writing as an “elaboration of experience” 

(p. 12). According to Rottenberg-Rosler et al. (2009), when a 

diarist expresses herself reflectively, she is “conducting a continu-

ous dialogue and seeking insight into her experience” (p. 136). 

The diarist “experiences a new and wider perspective of herself, 

and frequently uses verbs of thought, creating an imaginary audi-

ence and a dialogue with her past experience” (Rottenberg-Rosler 

et al. 2009, p. 136). Based on these general considerations, reflec-

tive diary writing can be provisionally defined as: 

 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 719 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

(a) an activity that is triggered when a diarist needs to pro-

cess various types of incomprehensible experience; (b) is as-

sociated with a feeling of uncertainty and confusion about 

the meaning of a situation the diarist is experiencing. The di-

arist uses writing (c) to externalize the inner stream of con-

sciousness, as (d) a tool for finding an adequate interpreta-

tion of the experience. (e) The activity of reflective diary 

writing can become part of a regular diarist’s practice and 

can serve as a tool to make sense of everyday experiences.  

Let me briefly elaborate on these aspects. 

 

(a) Reflective diary writing can be used to examine an expe-

rience that is not fully comprehensible to the diarist at the 

time. Through reflection, the diarist examines the experi-

ence, tries to understand its meaning, and interprets it in rela-

tion to themselves. According to Baud (2001),  

 
[r]eflection involves taking the unprocessed, raw material of expe-

rience and engaging with it as a way to make sense of what has 
occurred. It involves exploring often messy and confused events 

and focusing on the thoughts and emotions that accompany them 

(p. 2). 
 

Scholars point out that reflective diary writing is a tool that 

allows the diarist to gain some distance from the experience 

and elaborate on it (see Lejeune 2009; Zittoun and Gillespie 

2012; Crowther 1999, p. 207). According to Lejeune (2009), 

“[y]ou take refuge in its calm to ‘developʼ the image of what 

you have just lived through and to meditate upon it (…)” (p. 

195). Zittoun and Gillespie understand diary writing as “a 

process of exploration, elaboration, and transformation of 

experience” (2012, p. 12).   

Through diary writing, diarists can process various types 

of experience; they can try to understand specific events or 

situations in their life and can make sense of their own ideas, 

emotional states, values, or relationships or make sense of 

how they relate to, assess, or evaluate them. Diarists can also 

try to understand other people, their thinking, emotional 

states, attitudes, behavior, relationships, or the world in gen-



720 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

eral (see Accardo et al. 1996; Burt 1994; McFerran and Scott 

2013, pp. 14-15; Seiffge-Krenke 1997). The need for reflec-

tion may extend beyond events that have happened in the 

past to current and anticipated future experiences (Baud 

2001, pp. 10, 12-15). 

 

(b) An incomprehensible experience is typically associated 

with a feeling of uncertainty or confusion. At the moment of 

reflection, the diarist does not yet have an established inter-

pretation of the event and does not know how to process it. 

Essentially, the diarist does not yet know what has hap-

pened/is happening/will happen or how they will evalu-

ate/react to the situation. As Rainer (1980) points out, reflec-

tive diary writing is characterized by self-questioning:  

 
You might even begin a diary entry with an incisive self-reflective 

question: “What is the secret I am keeping from myself?” or 
“What is really bothering me?” The reflective voice can thus en-

courage the feeling, interior self to speak (p. 70).  

 

The need to eliminate the uncertainty and confusion regard-

ing the experience thus encourages the diarist to seek an ad-

equate and acceptable interpretation. 

 

(c) The diarist externalizes the process of reflection through 

writing. Zittoun and Gillespie (2012) refer to diary writing as 

“a process whereby the internal flow of thinking is translated 

into a semiotic and communicable form” (p. 8). According 

to Zittoun (2014), diaries are “natural laboratories” in which 

people “externalize their flow of thinking-discourse in a ver-

bal form over a long period of time” (p. 102). The externali-

zation of the inner stream of consciousness through diary 

writing is characterized by non-selectivity and immediacy. 

According to Rendall (1986), the expression of diarists is 

characteristically non-selective: “quicquid in buccam venit, 

whatever comes into the mouth goes onto the paper, without 

premeditation, without concern for formal or logical coher-

ence, without guile; in short, without art” (p. 58).  Diary 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 721 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

writing is also characterized by contemporaneous experience 

and writing. As stated by Alaszewski (2006a) “[t]he entries 

are made at the time or close enough to the time when events 

or activities occurred so that the record is not distorted by 

problems of recall” (p. 45). 

 

(d) Dealing with an incomprehensible experience typically 

involves confronting and considering alternative interpreta-

tions. Scholars generally agree that diary writing usually has 

a dialogical form (Rainer 1980, pp. 70-71; Crowther 1999, 

pp. 208-210; Zittoun and Gillespie 2012, p. 11; Hubbs and 

Brand 2005, p. 62). Diarists typically address their thoughts 

to an (external) addressee or engage in a dialogue with them-

selves, letting various internal positions speak. The address-

ee can take on different roles. According to Crowther 

(1999), “[t]he addressee becomes anything from a record-

keeper to a confidant, a confessor, a skeptic, a moral judge, a 

peer or a parent (critical or admiring), one’s ‘better self’ and 

so on” (p. 209). 

The dialogic form allows the diarist to take different posi-

tions on and formulate different interpretations of the in-

comprehensible experience. As Crowther puts it, “[w]ith 

each modulation of address, the writer is involved in putting 

on a slightly different performance, presenting different 

readings or inflections of the same life, different manifesta-

tions of the self” (1999, p. 209).  

The diarist conducts internal dialogues that have an ex-

ploratory character; they allow various I-positions to speak 

and interact, which allows them to try out these perspectives: 

“some of what is going on in diary discourse is a kind of per-

formance in front of a mirror, seeing how things look, trying 

out poses and voices” (Crowther 1999, p. 208). This explicit 

postulation and confrontation of different perspectives 

through internal dialogue allows the diarist to consider them 

and evaluate their acceptability. 

 

(e) The need to reflect on experience through reflective diary 

writing may arise due to a significant current experience that 



722 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

is incomprehensible and may end when a suitable interpreta-

tion is found. However, reflection can also become part of a 

regular (routine) diary practice and serve as a tool for the di-

arist to regularly devote themself to examining everyday ex-

perience (see Lejeune 2009, p. 193). According to Rainer, 

several more or less formalized techniques for facilitating 

reflection have been established: writing from an alternative 

point of view, writing a letter that remains unsent, or writing 

in the form of dialogue (Rainer 1980, pp. 95-114). 

3.2. Data 

Here, I illustrate the practice of reflective diary writing with spe-

cific fragments of diaries that I obtained during the project “The 

forms of (self-)persuasion in personal diaries” funded by the 

Czech Science Foundation (GA ČR 19-14095S). When selecting 

the method of data collection, I proceeded under the assumption 

that gaining unsolicited diaries for research purposes would be a 

relatively difficult task (see Alaszewski 2006b; Rottenberg-

Rossler et al. 2009) for the following reasons. First, we do not 

know the prevalence of diary writing in the population 

(Alaszewski 2006b, p. 61) and second, the practice of diary writ-

ing, as well as the diaries themselves, are often considered, by 

their authors, to be highly private or even secret, which can cause 

participants to feel distrustful and reluctant to provide their diary 

for research purposes (Accardo et al. 1996, p. 561; Zammuner 

2011, p. 17; Rottenberg-Rosler et al. 2009, p. 137). 

Therefore, self-selection seemed to be the most effective meth-

od of data collection, with participants joining voluntarily or ac-

tively expressing an interest in participating in the research. Partic-

ipants themselves could decide whether they wanted to provide a 

diary (or a segment of one) and select a (number of) particular 

fragment(s) of the diary that seemed, from their perspective, to be 

relevant for the purpose of the research. I proceeded with the data 

collection by combining two different versions of the self-

selection method: (1) a questionnaire distributed to university 

students and (2) informal inquiry addressed to colleagues and 

friends who expressed interest in the research. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 723 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

(1)  Questionnaire  

The data collection using this method took place in two phases. In 

the first phase, I distributed a questionnaire survey regarding the 

nature of unsolicited diary-keeping and diary writing practice. I 

emailed 874 bachelor’s and master’s students in humanities, peda-

gogy, and economics at five Czech universities. The questionnaire 

was completed and sent back by 114 recipients (73 females and 41 

males) aged 17–33 years, of which 66 recipients responded that 

they have in the past maintained or are currently maintaining a 

diary writing practice. Based on their willingness to participate in 

the following phase of the research (indicated by leaving an email 

address) and based on their answers indicating the typical needs 

that their diary writing meets,5 I identified 10 participants that 

were suitable for the research. In the second phase, I contacted 

these participants by email with an offer of collaboration. I asked 

them to re-read their diary and to consider whether they were 

willing to participate in the research by providing 10–15 pages that 

conformed to the characteristics of crisis or reflective writing. In 

return, I promised participants financial compensation of CZK 

2,000 (approximately €76). The diarists had a week to re-read their 

diaries and to consider their answers. After a week, I contacted 

them by email again with the offer. In this way, I managed to 

obtain seven diaries (six diaries from female diarists and one from 

a male diarist).  

 

 
5 Because the project “The forms of (self-)persuasion in personal diaries” 

focused on mapping argumentative practice through the activity of diary-

writing, the cases of so-called crisis diaries and reflective diaries were desirable 

given that the occurrence of internal differences of opinion was expected. I 

therefore identified the potential participants based on their answers to the 

question about the need(s) diary-writing satisfies from the perspective of the 

diarist: “I write a diary mainly because writing allows me to: (You can choose 
more than one option).” Answers including one (or more) of the following 

choices were considered relevant: “get rid of the burden of emotions by writing 

them down,” “confide in someone with your thoughts, wishes or problems,” 

“analyze and rethink your past actions and decisions,” “analyze and rethink 

your choices and decisions concerning the future.”  

  



724 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

(2)  Informal addressing  

In conjunction with the questionnaire method, I also utilized the 

method proposed by McFerran and Scott (2013): in informal 

conversations about my project with colleagues and friends, I 

found that several of them had maintained a diary practice of the 

desired type in their youth. Due to the fact that I also have experi-

ence with diary practice, it was possible to share experiences 

regarding writing with each other. Mutual trust led to two col-

leagues (both men) agreeing to provide me with part of their dia-

ries for research purposes. As part of this method, I also included 

one diary from my youth in the sub-sample that was the subject of 

our discussions. In this step, I followed the method proposed by 

McFerran and Scott (2013, p. 1-2), according to which the re-

searcher’s own example can be an appropriate strategy for gaining 

the trust of close recipients and gaining access to diaries. In this 

way, I managed to obtain three diaries (one from a female diarist 

and two from male diarists). In total, I therefore worked with a 

sample of 10 diaries (seven from female diarists and three from 

male diarists). 

In this paper, I use fragments from this collection for illustra-

tive purposes. The names of the diarists, as well as the names of 

the people and places mentioned, have been anonymized. 

3.3. Institutional point and communicative genre of reflective 

diary writing 

Since the diarist usually employs the practice of reflective diary 

writing to process incomprehensible experiences of various types, 

the specific institutional point is to find an interpretation of an 

incomprehensible experience that is acceptable to all participating 

I-positions.  

The communicative genre that can be implemented in pragma-

dialectical terms to achieve such a point seems to be negotiation. 

In negotiation, the parties typically focus on each other (rather 

than a third party) with the aim of finding some kind of compro-

mise, which usually consists of the maximum amount of agree-

ment the parties can reach on the basis of the concessions each of 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 725 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

them is willing to make (van Eemeren 2010, pp. 149-150). The 

parties share a broad zone of agreement regarding starting points, 

and argumentation and criticism are incorporated in mutual ex-

changes between the parties. The discussion concludes with an 

outcome that is mutually accepted by the parties involved; it is not 

delegated to a third party. If the parties do not agree, they can 

return to the initial situation (van Eemeren 2010, pp. 149-151). 

Van Eemeren (2010, p. 149, fn. 44) suggests that there are two 

types of negotiations: “integrative” negotiation, where the parties’ 

interests are conflicting but not necessarily mutually exclusive, so 

it is possible to achieve an outcome in which both parties gain 

something and “distributive” negotiation, where one party’s loss is 

the other party’s gain. For the domain of internal negotiation, a 

similar distinction is suggested by Nir (2012, pp. 284-285, 2016, 

pp. 3-4), who distinguishes between the “integrative mode” and 

the “distributive mode” of internal negotiation. According to her, 

the integrative mode captures a win-win situation in which the 

conflicting I-positions can express their interests, and a solution is 

constructed that satisfies the interests of multiple I-positions. The 

distributive mode, on the other hand, captures a win-lose situation 

in which one dominant I-position takes the negotiating space and 

directs the decision in its favor regardless of the interests of other 

I-positions. In the case of reflective diary writing, with respect to 

the institutional point of the activity, I suggest conceiving of it as 

aligning with the integrative mode of internal negotiation. 

3.4. Argumentative characterization of reflective diary writing 

According to van Eemeren (2010, p. 145), if the communicative 

activity type is at least partly argumentative, it may be considered 

useful to offer its argumentative characterization. Argumentative 

characterization clarifies how argumentative discourse is conven-

tionalized to serve an institutional point. By providing an argu-

mentative characterization, it is possible to describe how internal 

dialogue implemented through reflective diary writing is specifi-

cally regulated in its individual stages. To grasp these specifics, 

van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2005, 2006; see also van Eemeren 

2010, p. 146) propose a comparison between the empirical argu-



726 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

mentation practice in a particular communicative activity type 

with the “ideal model” of critical discussion. According to the 

ideal model, critical discussion goes through four stages in which 

standpoint and argumentation are critically tested. In order to 

characterize reflective diary writing, we must take into account 

specifically how the argumentation is impacted by the conventions 

of reflective diary writing by comparing it with the ideal model. 

 

In the ideal model of a critical discussion, pragma-dialecticians 

distinguish four stages. In the confrontation stage, the standpoint 

and its critical reception are externalized. In the opening stage, 

common ground between the parties in terms of procedural and 

material starting points is established. In the argumentation stage, 

the protagonist defends the standpoint by means of argumentation, 

and the protagonist and antagonist together test the sustainability 

of the protagonist’s argument. In the concluding stage, the results 

of the discussion are determined. Each of these stages of the ideal 

model has its empirical counterpart in argumentative reality. The 

empirical counterparts serve as the focal points for the argumenta-

tive characterization of a communicative activity type (van Eeme-

ren and Grootendorst 1984, 2004; van Eemeren 2010).  

In accordance with the method introduced by van Eemeren (2010, 

p. 146), I focus on the four counterparts he proposed correspond-

ing to the stages of critical discussion. For the purposes of this 

paper, the initial situation (as a counterpart to the confrontation 

stage) can be described as the way in which conventions of reflec-

tive diary writing impact discussants’ externalizations of a differ-

ence of opinion. Under procedural and material starting points (as 

a counterpart of the opening stage), we can list specific discussion 

rules and a set of factual and value propositions used in internal 

discussion. For argumentative means and criticism (as a counter-

part to the argumentation stage), we can describe argumentative 

patterns and critical reactions that are typically used in reflective 

diary writing. Concerning the outcome of the dispute (as a coun-

terpart to the concluding stage), we can describe conventions for 

determining the resolution of the discussion implemented through 

reflective diary writing (van Eemeren 2010, p. 146).  



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 727 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Initial situation 

Reflective diary writing is prompted by an incomprehensible 

experience that can vary greatly with respect to topic and is typi-

cally accompanied by a state of confusion and uncertainty. As 

already pointed out, a state of confusion typically results in self-

questioning. Let us illustrate such initial confusion with a fragment 

from the diary of Adam, a young man reflecting on his confusion 

about the emotions raised by an encounter with a young woman, 

Stella:  

 

A new person in my life. Stella. Who is she? What’s going 

on? Where is it headed? What the fuck does this mean? I 

don’t even know !!6 

 

Adam’s confusion relates to one particular encounter with Stella 

and the emotions the encounter aroused in him. The state of confu-

sion is accompanied by self-questioning (“Who is she? What’s 

going on? Where is it headed? What the fuck does this mean? I 

don’t even know !!”) 

Through the activity of reflective diary writing, the diarist tries to 

find an adequate (i.e., acceptable from the point of view of various 

I-positions) interpretation of the given experience. The diarist 

looks for an appropriate interpretation by presenting and testing 

the sustainability of various interpretations of the experience. 

Proposed interpretations of incomprehensible experience can 

therefore be understood as standpoints presented by different I-

positions.  

At the most general level, we can formally express the interpreta-

tion of an incomprehensible experience as a statement of the sub-

ject-predicate form: “X is Y.” However, we consider that through 

the reflective diary writing activity, two types of standpoints are 

typically presented: (a) factual and (b) value.7 The particular form 

 
6 In original (Czech): Nová osoba v mém životě. Stella. Co je zač? O co jde? 

Kam to směřuje? Co to kurva znamená? Nevím ani !!. 
7 As shown in Svačinová (2021, p. 252), a suggestion for action associated with 

a prescriptive standpoint (“The diarist should behave in way X”) is typical for 

the form of diary practice known as crisis diary-writing; its goal is to find a 

solution to the crisis experienced (see Lejeune 2009, p. 195; Sederberg 2017). 



728 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

of the standpoint depends on whether the diarist is trying to inter-

pret what happened or rather determine their emotional/attitudinal 

relation to the experience. Standpoints can therefore typically be 

expressed in two general forms (Wagemans 2016, p. 7): 

 

(1) Person, event, thing, act, policy (X) has empirical 
property P (Y).  

(2) Person, event, thing, act, policy (X) is judged by di-
arist as J (Y). 

 

The diarist considers the adequacy of the proposed interpretation 

from various I-positions. The initial difference of opinion, in the 

simplest case, is what is called simple non-mixed—a diarist pro-

poses one interpretation of an incomprehensible experience from 

one I-position, and from another I-position raises doubts about 

such an interpretation. Such a doubt does not necessarily have to 

be raised explicitly; the diarist may only anticipate it. The origin of 

the non-mixed difference of opinion can be illustrated by the 

following fragment from the diary of Edith, a young woman who 

reflects on whether she is in love with her new boyfriend, Peter: 8   

 
And I’m probably really in love, because I write about it like that 

and I think about him [Peter], and I’m even willing (perhaps for 
the first time in my life) to accept everything, to fight it and grad-

ually to start tolerating and accepting it. Well, what if that’s ex-

actly what relationships are about?
9
  

 

 
8 In the illustrative fragments, for the sake of clarity, I graphically distinguish 
the passage (italics, underlining) that is reconstructed as a statement from 

different I-positions (see Aveling et al. 2015). Distinguishing the passages 

graphically makes it possible to highlight the dialogical character of the diary 

entries (as reflecting the dialogical character of diary-writing) and also helps 

with orientation when reconstructing the arguments raised by the individual 
parties. 
9 In original: A já jsem asi fakt zamilovaná, protože si o tom takto píšu a 

přemýšlím o něm a jsem dokonce i ochotná (snad poprvé v životě) to všechno 

přijmout, poprat se s tím a postupně to začít tolerovat a akceptovat. No a co 

když je zrovna tohle to, o čem ty vztahy jsou.  

 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 729 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

From the I-position we can label as I-as-in-love, Edith presents a 

factual standpoint stating that she is in love with Peter (“And I’m 

probably really in love”). However, she simultaneously anticipates 

a doubt from another critical I-position, which we can detect from 

her need to present evidence to support the standpoint that demon-

strates her amorous behavior (“because I write about it like that 

and I think about him, and I’m even willing [perhaps for the first 

time in my life] to accept everything, to fight it and gradually to 

start tolerating and accepting it.”) The initial difference of opinion 

is simple non-mixed: 

 

I-as-in-love 

1 I am in love with Peter. 

 

I-as-critic 

[raises doubts] 

 

There may also be a situation in which the interpretation presented 

by a diarist from one I-position is rejected from another I-position. 

In such a case, the second I-position is committed to defending the 

counter-standpoint in the general form: “X is not Y.” In such a 

situation, a mixed difference of opinion arises between the I-

positions. We can also expect that an alternative interpretation of 

the experience may be presented by one of the already participat-

ing I-positions or by a new, third I-position: “X is Y'.” Such a 

standpoint may also be doubted or rejected from another I-

position. In such a case, there is a multiple mixed difference of 

opinion because the difference is about the acceptability of more 

than one standpoint. 

Let us illustrate the initial situation with another fragment from 

Edith’s diary. Edith tries to find an adequate interpretation of her 

relation to housework in a household that she shares with her new 

boyfriend, Peter: 

 
Today I washed and cleaned. I made some food ... I keep thinking 

about him [Peter]. Somehow I care from my own free will. And I 

think it’s such a nice thing ... I don’t mind. (…) It is strange. 
Sometimes so beautiful, idyllic, normal, human, relaxed, slow-

moving, the way I’ve always wanted it. And I feel happy and 



730 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

grateful for what I have now. But on the other hand, I also have 
states in which I think that this is simply not worth it, that it just 

slows me down and exhausts me.
10

  

 

The entry can be conceived of as a particular dialogical knot where 

Edith, from two I-positions, expresses and confronts differing 

perspectives. The standpoints that the I-positions raise can be 

reconstructed as follows: 

 

I-as-caring: 

 

1 Household care fills me with gratitude and happiness. 

 

I-as-exhausted: 

 

1 Household care slows me down and exhausts me.  

 

From the position of I-as-caring, Edith presents one standpoint. 

She claims explicitly that the household care fills her with grati-

tude and happiness (“And I think it’s such a nice thing. … And I 

feel happy and grateful for what I have now”). From the position I-

as-exhausted, she opposes this and offers an alternative interpreta-

tion of household care: it rather exhausts her (“I also have states in 

which I think that this is simply not worth it, that it just slows me 

down and exhausts me”). In this case, therefore, there is a multiple 

mixed difference in the diarist’s different valuations of her role in 

the household care. 

Procedural and material starting points 

According to pragma-dialectics, starting points can be procedural 

or material. Procedural starting points refer to the distribution of 

argumentative roles and the rules of discussion. Material starting 

 
10 In original: Dneska jsem prala a uklízela. Připravila jsem i nějaký 

jídlo...myslím na něj pořád. Tak nějak sama od sebe se starám. A myslím, že je 

to i taková hezká věc...nevadí mně. (…) Je to zvláštní. Někdy tak krásný, 

idylický, normální, lidský, pohodový, zpomalený, tak, jak jsem si to vždycky 

přála. A cítím se šťastně a vděčně za to, co teď mám. Ale na druhou stranu mám 

i stavy, že tohle prostě nemá cenu, že mě to akorát brzdí a vyšťavuje. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 731 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

points are a set of propositions about the facts and values that can 

be used in the discussion (van Eemeren 2010, p. 44). 

With regard to the distribution of roles, in the simplest case of a 

simple non-mixed difference of opinion, the diarist accepts the 

role of protagonist (P) from one I-position and commits to defend-

ing the standpoint. From the other I-position, they accept the role 

of antagonist (A) and commit to critically testing the acceptability 

of the standpoint. In the case of a mixed difference, the diarist 

accepts the role of protagonist of the opposing standpoints from 

different I-positions (P1, P2). In such a case, the I-positions auto-

matically become antagonists of the standpoint of the counterpar-

ty. 

The I-positions, between which the difference of opinion arises, 

represent different aspects of the diarist’s identity, defined by 

distinct values and interests in resolving the difference of opinion 

(Nir 2012, p. 285). I-positions that are in a non-mixed or mixed 

difference of opinion can be seen as mutual primary audiences: 

the I-positions’ aims are primarily to persuade a counterparty to 

accept their standpoint (and to reject an initial doubt or a defended 

counter-standpoint)—they do not intend to influence a third party 

with their argumentation (van Eemeren 2010, p. 109). 

However, in the context of reflective diary writing, we can expect 

the diarist to also consider secondary audiences. As Kunt (2015) 

points out, some diarists regularly address someone as part of their 

writing routines. Such an addressee is usually different from the 

diarist and can be considered to be one of the external I-positions. 

It can be a representation of a real or imaginary person or even the 

diary itself (e.g., “Dear Kitty,” “Dear Diary,” etc.) (see Lejeune 

2009; van Dijck 2004; Zittoun and Gillespie 2012; Paperno 2004; 

Sinats et al. 2005, pp. 264-265). As Svačinová (2021, p. 253) 

points out, such an addressee usually has a secondary function 

from the point of view of argumentation theory—the diarist’s 

objective is not to convince such an addressee of the acceptability 

of the standpoint. Rather, the addressee plays the role of a confi-

dant who is informed about ongoing events; they are a silent wit-



732 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

ness to a process of reflection who does not raise any criticisms or 

doubt.11 

It could be also added that the practice of reflective diary writing 

is time-bound. Lejeune (2009, p. 189) distinguishes diaries devot-

ed to a single life phase and organized around a particular area of 

experience from “all-purpose” diaries written to accompany a life 

for as long as possible. Reflective practice can become part of both 

of these forms. It can therefore be practiced either intermittently, if 

it is necessary to reflect on the current incomprehensible experi-

ence, or continuously, thus becoming part of the day-by-day re-

flective routine. Arguments in favor of a standpoint can therefore 

be part of a single diary entry but can also be presented sequential-

ly and be part of many entries written at different times. 

With regard to material starting points, it can be said that diarists 

have an extensive base, which is given by their subjective experi-

ence. This base includes the sum of factual and value starting 

points and is a combination of a diarist’s memories, wishes, and 

reflections that can shift “between present, past, and future time, at 

times addressing the future in an inquisitive way (…)” (Sederberg 

2017, p. 330; see also Culley 1985, p. 20). 

Diarists record factual starting points—that is, what they accept as 

facts with regard to an incomprehensible experience. These start-

ing points are widely shared between I-positions. Let us illustrate 

this with a fragment from the diary of Esther, a young woman who 

reflects on the situation of an accidental encounter with Robin, her 

past love. Before she reflects on her emotions, she describes the 

situation: 

 
So, what actually happened. My sister had a party and then we 

went to Olympia [name of a store], nothing unusual. But Patrick 

[Esther’s current boyfriend] was tired, drunk, so I gave him the 

 
11 In this paper, I limit my focus to internal dialogue between internal I-

positions conceived as primary audiences. I do not focus on the practice of 
diary-writing in which the primary goal is to influence or persuade an external 

audience or prepare for a (real) dialogue with a significant other (see Harrison 

2003; Martinson 2003); however, this kind of practice may be addressed in 

future research. The impact of the secondary audience in the role of confidant or 

the impact of an assumed real external reader of the diary on the character of 

various forms of diary-writing could be addressed in future research as well.  



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 733 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

keys and money for a taxi to go to my place to rest. (…) I went 
there with my sister’s buddies and he [Robin] was standing there. 

I had butterflies in my stomach and I was looking forward all 

night to walking home with him. But I thought of Patrick, how I 
would explain it to him. But he didn’t ask today, he found nothing 

strange about it, neither did I.
12

  

 

Material starting points have the character of a description of the 

context of the experience being reflected on. Esther describes the 

event in general, its participants, and the important key moments 

of the experience (“My sister had a party and then we went to 

Olympia, nothing unusual. But Patrick was tired, drunk, so I gave 

him the keys and money for a taxi to go to my place to rest,” “I 

went there with my sister’s buddies and he was standing there”). 

At the same time, she also records the emotional states that the 

event aroused in her, which she evaluates as factual states of af-

fairs (“I had butterflies in my stomach and I was looking forward 

all night to walking home with him”). 

Diarists also express their evaluations of situations, people, or 

events that can serve as value standpoints in internal dialogue. A 

fragment from Ida’s diary provides an example. Before she re-

flects on her emotions with respect to her future life, she valuates 

her actual life situation:  

 
I’m still thinking only of Jeremy… over and over again… how I 

love him and how much I miss him now! :(
13

… I want to cry… 
from how I live day by day and I’m just looking forward to living 

again because I’ll be with him!
14

 

 

 
12 In original: Takže, co se vlastně stalo. Ségra měla oslavu a potom jsme šli pod 

Olympii, klasika. Jenže Patrick byl unavený, opilý, tak jsem mu dala klíče a 

peníze na taxíka, aby jel ke mně a odpočinul si. (…) Šla jsem tam se ségry 

kámošema a on tam stál. Měla jsem motýlky a celou noc jsem se těšila na to, až 
ho pujdu vyprovodit. Ale myslela jsem na Patricka, jak mu to asi vysvětlím. Ale 

dneska se nezeptal, nepřišlo mu nic divnýho, ani já. 
13 In her diary entry, Ida uses the handwritten emoticon :( [sad face]. 
14 In original: furt myslím jenom na Jeremyho… pořád a pořád… na to, jak ho 

miluju a jak moc mi teď chybí! :(… chce se mi brečet… z toho, jak prožívám 

den za dnem a jen se těším, až budu zase žít, protože budu s ním! 



734 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Here, Ida records an evaluation of her boyfriend Jeremy (“how I 

love him and how much I miss him now!”) as well as her evalua-

tion of her actual situation (“I want to cry… from how I live day 

by day”) and expected future (“I’m just looking forward to living 

again because I’ll be with him!”).  

Argumentative means and criticism 

Given the point of the activity, in essence, to find an adequate 

interpretation of an incomprehensible event, we can expect that the 

I-position accepting the role of protagonist proposes a certain 

interpretation of an incomprehensible experience in the standpoint 

and supports it by presenting evidence in its favor. Typically, we 

can expect the use of what is called symptomatic argumentation in 

favor of the proposed standpoint. According to van Eemeren et al. 

(2007),  

 
[i]n argumentation that is based on a symptomatic relationship 

(…) a property, class membership, distinctive characteristic, or 
essence of a particular thing, person, or situation referred to in the 

argumentation also applies to the thing, person or situation re-

ferred to in the standpoint (p. 154). 

 

Symptomatic argumentation can be expressed by the following 

general scheme (see van Eemeren et al. 2002, p. 97): 

 

1 Y is true of X. 

1.1 Z is true of X. 

1.1' Z is symptomatic of Y. 

 

The I-position that does not accept such an argument can doubt the 

acceptability of the argument as an antagonist and test it critically 

through critical questions. In the case of disagreement and ac-

ceptance of the role of the protagonist of the opposing standpoint, 

the opposing I-position can draw from critical objections that 

relate to symptomatic argumentation. Such criticism can typically 

indicate that (a) the empirical property/valuation Z does not char-

acteristically go together with the empirical property/valuation Y; 

(b) that Y is rather characteristic of something else (Z'); or (c) that 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 735 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

X must have some other characteristics Y' in order to attribute 

property/valuation Z to it (van Eemeren et al., 2007, p. 155). 

 

Let us consider an example of such a case from the diary of Norah, 

a young woman who reflects on an incomprehensible experience 

during which Daniel, a man she is secretly in love with, kissed her 

on the cheek. 

 
I have absolutely no idea what that kiss on the cheek was sup-

posed to mean. Probably nothing. Why is he [Daniel] doing this to 

me? Now I am back in something that I don’t want to be in. After 

all, it was just on the cheek. But what about the look? I see more 
in that than there is. Especially when there’s nothing in it. After 

all, he likes Amy. I saw how much. More than he ever liked me.
15

  

 

In this fragment, we can identify two positions that can be labeled 

as I-as-romantic and I-as-skeptic. Norah, from the position of I-as-

romantic, accepts the role of protagonist (P1) and defends the 

standpoint according to which Daniel has romantic feelings for 

her. From the position of I-as-skeptic, she raises doubt, in essence, 

she accepts the role of the protagonist of the counter-standpoint 

(P2) and criticizes the argument put forward from the position of I-

as-romantic. We can reconstruct the presented argumentation as 

follows: 

 
I-as-romantic (P1) 

 

(1) (Daniel has romantic feelings for 

me.) 

1.1a Daniel kissed me on the 

cheek. 

1.1b Daniel looked at me signifi-

cantly. 

I-as-skeptic (P2) 

 

1 Daniel does not have romantic 

feelings for me.  

1.1 A kiss on the cheek did not 

have to mean anything. 

1.2 Daniel’s look had no special 

significance. 

1.3 Daniel likes Amy more than 

me. 

 
15 In original: Naprosto netuším, co ta pusa na tvář měla znamenat. Asi nic. Proč 

mi tohle dělá? Teď jsem zase o stádium zpátky a to být teda nechci. Vždyť to 

bylo jenom na tvář. Ale co ten pohled? Vidím v tom zas víc, než v tom je. 

Zvlášť, když v tom nic není. Vždyť se mu líbila Amy. A já dobře viděla jak. 

Tak, jak já nikdy ne. 



736 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

    1.3.1 I saw that Daniel likes Amy. 

 

Arguments 1.1 and 1.2, presented from the I-position I-as-skeptic, 

proceed from the critical objection that the evidence presented by 

I-as-romantic in her arguments 1.1a and 1.1b is not sufficient to 

establish Daniel’s romantic interest.  

The internal dialogue does not necessarily have to include criti-

cism of the presented arguments. The opposing standpoint may be 

supported by symptomatic arguments that use independent sources 

of evidence. We can illustrate such a case with a fragment from 

Edith’s diary in which Edith is considering from two I-positions 

whether Peter is a suitable partner for her. She formulates her 

evidence in the form of a list of pros and cons: 

 
Why not this guy: 

.he doesn’t push things 

.sometimes he is very caustic 

.he doesn’t talk about how he feels 

.he doesn’t give a damn about his appearance 

.he is uncompromising when he thinks he’s right 

.he is pretty lazy 

.he is still a kid in some ways 

.when he thinks about a part-time job, he thinks about some jobs 

such as delivering PPL packages and similar bullshit, even though 
he can do better and could work amazingly with his brains, earn 

better money and especially gain interesting practical experience 

for the future (…) 
 

For this guy: 

.I want to learn Chinese with him 

.he is an interesting guy 

.when he talks, he knows what he’s talking about 

.he probably really likes me 

.he likes to cuddle 

.and he does it well when he wants to 

.he smiles and that’s it 

(…)
16

 

 
16 In original: Proč ne tento kluk: .nehroti věci .nekdy je az moc urejpanej 

.nemluvi o tom, jak se citi .nekdy dost sere na svuj vzhled .je nekompromisni, 

kdyz si mysli, ze ma pravdu .je dost linej .je v necem porad jeste decko .kdyz uz 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 737 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

 

The presented fragment can be reconstructed as argumentative 

dialogue between Edith’s positions of I-as-skeptic and I-as-

romantic. The sources of evidence used by the I-positions to sup-

port the opposing standpoints are independent in this case: they are 

different categories of Peter’s qualities. The parties do not doubt or 

criticize the submitted argumentation of the counterparty: 

 
I-as-skeptic 
 

1 Peter is not a suitable partner for 

me. 

1.1 Peter is passive. 

1.1. Peter is sometimes overly criti-

cal. 

1.2 Peter does not talk about how 

he feels. 

1.3 Peter does not care about his 

appearance. 

1.4 Peter is uncompromising when 

he thinks he is right. 

1.5 Peter is lazy. 

1.6 In some respects, Peter is child-

ish. 

1.7 Peter is unambitious when 

choosing a part-time job. 

I-as-romantic 

 

1 Peter is a suitable partner for me. 

1.1a I want to learn Chinese with 

Peter. 

1.1b Peter is an interesting guy. 

1.1c Peter is thoughtful. 

1.1d Peter really likes me. 

1.1e Peter likes to cuddle. 

1.1f Peter can satisfy me sexual-

ly. 

1.1g I am attracted to Peter’s 

smile. 

 

 

Given the character of the standpoint, we can expect that the ar-

gumentation may have a complex structure. The diarist can, from 

different I-positions, strengthen the acceptability of the interpreta-

tion of an incomprehensible experience proposed in the standpoint 

by providing additional (symptomatic) evidence, in which case 

new arguments may be submitted that form a coordinative or 

multiple argumentative structure, as illustrated in the case of 

 
teda premysli o nejake brigade, tak premysli nad nejakyma pracema, jako je 

tahani ppl baliku a takovej podobnej bullshit, i kdyz ma na mnohem vic a mohl 

by krasne pracovat hlavou, mit za to lepsi prachy a hlavne zajimavou praxi do 

budoucnosti (…) Proč ano tento kluk: .chci se s nim ucit cinstinu .je to 

zajimavej borec .kdyz mluvi, tak vi o cem .asi me ma fakt rad .rad se tuli .a umi 

to, kdyz se mu chce .usmeje se a je hotovo (…).  



738 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Edith’s diary. Alternatively, the diarist can, from different I-

positions, also respond to the (raised or anticipated) 

doubt/criticism of the acceptability of individual arguments. Such 

a reaction may lead to an attempt to supplement or support the 

previously presented argument, creating a coordinative or subor-

dinative argumentative structure as illustrated in the case of argu-

ment 1.3.1 being submitted by Norah’s I-as-skeptic position. 

Outcome of the discussion   

The activity of reflective diary writing ends when an adequate 

interpretation of an incomprehensible experience is found. From a 

pragma-dialectic point of view, such a moment can be defined as 

reaching mutual agreement on the acceptance or non-acceptance 

of a standpoint (in the case of a non-mixed difference of opinion) 

or on the acceptance of one of the opposing standpoints (in the 

case of a mixed difference). If this does not happen, the internal 

discussion may return to the initial situation.17 

Note that the outcome of the discussion often remains implicit—it 

is not recorded in the data. Diarists do not have to feel the need to 

write down their final (accepted) interpretation of experience; they 

can achieve it purely in their minds.  

Let us consider the outcome of the discussion in a fragment from 

the diary of Adam, who reflects on his feelings for a young wom-

an, Brenda. His entry can be interpreted as providing a report on 

finding a suitable interpretation of an incomprehensible experience 

and thus the conclusion of reflective activity: 

 
So the mystery is solved. I already know why I fall back on feel-

ings of depression and self-contempt every time I am alone, with-

out contact with friends and especially with Brenda. I already 

know why my heart was pounding when I saw Brenda leaving the 
art lesson with her boyfriend, Andy, on February 10th. Why I get 

depressed and feel inferior every time I remember Brenda, Andy 

and the art lesson. It was actually hidden right in plain sight, and I 
wasn’t willing to admit it subconsciously. 

 
17 In the case of a regular diary practice in which a diarist reflects on different 

kinds of incomprehensible experiences, we can talk about consecutive, different 

(separate) differences of opinion. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 739 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

 
In short, I am platonically in love with Brenda. 

 

I have nothing to add.
18

 

 

Adam provides information in the diary about the final acceptance 

of the standpoint that his feelings for Brenda have the character of 

platonic love (“I am platonically in love with Brenda”). 

The argumentative characterization of reflective diary writing, 

which captures the way in which an internal discussion is specifi-

cally regulated in its individual stages, is captured in Table 1: 

 
Initial situa-

tion 

Procedural and 

material starting points 

Argumentative 

means and 

criticism 

Outcome of 

discussion 

Single non-

mixed differ-

ence of 

opinion about 

factual or 

value stand-

point; it can 

develop into a 

single mixed 

or multiple 

mixed differ-

ence of 

opinion; 

decision up to 

parties. 

 

Procedural: 

 

Implicitly and 

informally 

regulated 

practice; 

role of protagonist 

and antagonist is 

accepted by a 

diarist speaking 

from different 

internal I-positions. 

 

Special techniques 

of diary writing 

(e.g., altered point 

of view, unsent 

letter, dialogue) 

Material: 

 

A broad 

zone of 

agreement 

on shared 

starting 

points. 

 

Factual 

and evalu-

ative 

starting 

points. 

Argumentation 

incorporated in 

multivaried 

intrapersonal 

exchanges. 

 

Typical use of 

symptomatic 

argumentation.  

 

Complex 

argumentation 

structure 

arising in 

response to 

raised or 

anticipated 

criticism about 

Implicit conclu-

sion by mutually 

accepted out-

come or return 

to initial situa-

tion. 

 
18 In original: Tak záhada je vyřešena. Už vím, proč na mně dopadají pocity 

skleslosti a sebeopovržení pokaždé, když jsem sám, bez kontaktu s přáteli a 
obzvláště s Brendou. Už vím, proč mi ruplo srdce, když jsem 10. února viděl, 

jak Brenda odchází z výtvarky se svým přítelem Andym. Proč na mně dopadá 

deprese a pocit méněcennosti pokaždé, když se si na Brendu, Andyho a ZUŠku 

vzpomenu. Ono to vlastně bylo schované přímo před mým zrakem a já jsem si 

to nebyl ochoten podvědomně připustit. Já jsem zkrátka do Brendy platonicky 

zamilovaný. Nemám co k tomu dodat. 



740 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

 

The reflective 

practice is time-

bound; it is per-

formed either 

intermittently (if 

necessary to reflect 

the current incom-

prehensible experi-

ence) or continu-

ously (it becomes 

part of the day-by-

day reflective 

routine). 

acceptability of 

standpoint and 

argument. 

 

Table 1: Argumentative characterization of reflective diary writing. 

Conclusion 

I have suggested that internal dialogue externalized through the 

activity of reflective diary writing can be theorized as an argumen-

tative discourse in pragma-dialectical terms as it is in accordance 

with its meta-theoretical principles. In particular, I have thorough-

ly examined the principles of socialization and externalization. In 

accordance with the principle of socialization, internal dialogue 

can be conceived as a “socialized” activity when we consider that 

the diarist is capable of accepting different argumentation roles 

from different I-positions. The theoretical basis proposed and 

elaborated on using dialogical self-theory (Hermans 2001, 2018) 

and negotiational self-theory (Nir 2012, 2016) could serve as a 

suitable starting point for conceiving of the dialogical character of 

the individual and the examination of their internal clashes. At the 

same time, in accordance with the principle of externalization, 

internal dialogue can be seen as “externalized” when we conceive 

of it as transferable through the process of diary writing into a 

verbalized and analyst-accessible form. Based on specific linguis-

tic features of the record of internal dialogue, “dialogical knots” 

recording internal differences of opinion between I-positions 

(Aveling et al. 2015) can be identified and subjected to argumenta-

tive analysis. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 741 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

I have also suggested that reflective diary writing can be con-

ceived of as a specifically conventionalized practice belonging to 

the domain of intrapersonal communication. I have shown that 

reflective diary writing is a conventionalized activity type utilizing 

the genre of (integrative) negotiation preconditioned by implicit 

norms governing the conduct of argumentation. The initial situa-

tion of reflective diary writing can be conceived of as a single non-

mixed difference of opinion arising between two internal I-

positions about a factual or value standpoint that can develop into 

a single mixed or multiple mixed difference of opinion.  The roles 

of protagonist and antagonist in the difference of opinion are 

accepted by a diarist speaking from different internal I-positions, 

and a broad zone of agreement on shared factual and evaluative 

starting points can be expected. I-positions prototypically utilize 

symptomatic argumentation when presenting evidence for their 

standpoints, and complex argumentation structures can arise in 

response to raised or anticipated criticism regarding the acceptabil-

ity of a standpoint and argument. An implicit conclusion is 

reached by achieving a mutually accepted outcome or the discus-

sion can return to the initial situation. 

The results of this study are limited by the size and character of the 

sample of diaries, as well as by the social and cultural context of 

their production: the study is based on a limited number of diaries 

(10) mostly written by young people who were predominantly 

students of Czech nationality and who were also willing to inter-

rupt the privacy of their diary practice and offer their diaries for 

the purpose of the research. It is therefore not necessarily an ex-

haustive characterization of reflective diary writing practice. Thus, 

this research could be expanded in the future not only by increas-

ing the number of diaries evaluated, but also by including a greater 

diversity of diarists, thereby enriching our concept of reflective 

diary writing as well as the character of argumentation included 

therein by other forms of practice. 

The argumentative characterization of reflective diary writing can 

function as a starting point for further analysis and evaluation of 

argumentation in this context. The importance of studying the 

reflective practice of diarists is twofold. First, at the more theoreti-

cal level, it contributes to the general understanding of some as-



742 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

pects of human thinking. Second, it helps us better understand 

individual forms of self-persuasion. For example, it enables the 

examination of the ways in which I-positions can strengthen their 

communication rhetorically in a given communicative practice 

(see van Eemeren 2016, p. 10). It can therefore serve as a suitable 

starting point for research into the rhetorical strategies of I-

positions (see Larrain and Haye 2012; Nienkamp 2001). An inter-

esting direction for further research from the perspective of prag-

ma-dialectics would be the strategic maneuvering implemented 

from different I-positions by the diarist, which could shed light on 

specific strategies used by I-positions to gain dominance in an 

internal discussion and win the difference of opinion.19 The cur-

rent study of the character of reflective diary writing can also serve 

as a starting point for the characterization (and potentially also 

comparison) of other forms of diary writing as well as other forms 

of internal dialogue and research into their argumentative charac-

ter.  

Acknowledgments 

This study is a result of research funded by the Czech Science 

Foundation as the project GA ČR 19-14095S “The forms of (self) 

persuasion in personal diaries.” I wish to thank the two anonymous 

reviewers for providing helpful comments on earlier versions of 

this paper. I also wish to thank Andrew Christensen for his careful 

proofreading of the paper. 

 

 

 

 
19 An interesting case study of the effectiveness of the inner voices of “hope” 

and “despair” in the final passages of Virginia Woolf’s diary was offered by 
Androutsopoulou et al. (2020) using a thematic narrative analysis where the 

strength of the voices was determined based on the space each covered in the 

narrative. Research using argumentative and rhetorical perspectives could 

enrich this and similar types of analysis by characterizing the argumentative and 

rhetorical strategies that voices employ in internal communication to gain 

dominance over other voices.  



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 743 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

References 

Accardo, C. M., D. C. Aboyoun, B. A. Alford and J. T. Cannon. 1996. 

Diaries: Who keeps them and why. Perceptual and Motor Skills 
82(2): 559-562. 

Alaszewski, Andy. 2006a. Diaries as a source of suffering narratives: A 

critical commentary. Health, Risk & Society 8(1): 43-58. 

Alaszewski, Andy. 2006b. Using diaries for social research. Sage 
Publications. 

Alderson-Day, Ben and Charles Fernyhough. 2015. Inner speech: De-

velopment, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. 
Psychological Bulletin 141(5): 931-965. 

Androutsopoulou, Athena, Eugenia Rozou and Mary Vakondiou. 2020. 

Voices of hope and despair: A narrative-dialogical inquiry into the 
diaries, letters, and suicide notes of Virginia Woolf. Journal of Con-

structivist Psychology 33(4): 367-384. 

Aveling, Emma-Louise, Alex Gillespie and Flora Cornish. 2015. A 

qualitative method for analysing multivoicedness. Qualitative Re-
search 15(6): 670-687. 

Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 2006. The dialogic imagination: Four essays, ed. 

Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. 
Baud, David. 2001. Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. 

New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (90): 9-18. 

Baumtrog, Michael D. 2018. Reasoning and arguing, dialectically and 

dialogically, among individual and multiple participants. Argumenta-
tion 32(1): 77-98. 

Billig, Michael 1996. Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to 

social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Burt, Christopher D. B. 1994. An analysis of a self-initiated coping 

behavior: Diary-keeping. Child Study Journal 24(3): 171-189. 

Crowther, Barbara. 1999. Writing as performance: Young girls’ diaries. 
In Making meaning of narratives, eds. Ruthellen Josselson and Amia 

Lieblich, 197-221. Sage. 

Culley, Margo. 1985. A day at a time: The diary literature of American 

women from 1764 to the present. The Feminist Press at CUNY. 
Dijck, José van. 2004. Composing the self: Of diaries and lifelogs. The 

Fibreculture Journal 3. <http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-

composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/>. 
Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative 

discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumenta-

tion. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 

http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/
http://three.fibreculturejournal.org/fcj-012-composing-the-self-of-diaries-and-lifelogs/


744 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van. 2016. Identifying argumentative patterns: A vital 
step in the development of pragma-dialectics. Argumentation 30(1): 

1-24. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Erik C. W. Krabbe, A. Francisca 
Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H. M. Wagemans. 2014. 

Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in 
argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of 

discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: De 

Gruyter. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, 
communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. 

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory 
of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson and Scott 

Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Alabama: 
The University of Alabama Press. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Rob Grootendorst and A. Francisca Snoeck 

Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presenta-
tion. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. 2005. Theoretical construc-

tion and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discus-
sion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In OSSA 

conference archive. URL accessed 5 October 2021: 

<http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA6/papers/9>. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser 2006. Strategic maneuver-
ing: A synthetic recapitulation. Argumentation 20(4): 381-392. 

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck 

Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators: A pragma-dialectical 
study. Dordrecht: Springer. 

Fernyhough, Charles. 2004. Alien voices and inner dialogue: Towards a 

developmental account of auditory verbal hallucinations. New Ideas 
in Psychology 22(1): 49-68. 

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting to yes: Negotiating 

agreement without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 

Fothergill, Robert A. 1995. One day at a time: The diary as lifewriting. 
A/B: Auto/Biography Studies 10(1): 81-91. 

Geheran, Michael J. 2011. “I am fighting the hardest battle for my 

Germanness now”: Internal dialogues of Victor Klempe-
rer. Psychology & Society 4(2): 21-39. 

http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA6/papers/9


Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 745 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Gillespie, Alex, Flora Cornish, Emma-Louise Aveling and Tania 
Zittoun. 2008. Conflicting community commitments: A dialogical 

analysis of a British woman’s World War II diaries. Journal of Com-

munity Psychology 36(1): 35-52. 
Gillespie, David. 1999. First person singular: The literary diary in twen-

tieth-century Russia. The Slavonic and East European Review 77(4): 

620-645. 
Greco, Sara. 2016. Analysing multiple addressivity in research inter-

views: A methodological suggestion from argumentation theo-

ry. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 8: 61-74. 

Greco, Sara. 2017. Using argumentative tools to understand inner dia-
logue. Argumentation 31(2): 331-358. 

Greco Morasso, Sara. 2013. Multivoiced decisions: A study of migrants’ 

inner dialogue and its connection to social argumenta-
tion. Pragmatics & Cognition 21(1): 55-80. 

Harrison, Kimberly. 2003. Rhetorical rehearsals: The construction of 

ethos in confederate women’s civil war diaries. Rhetoric Review 

22(3): 243-263. 
Hermans, Hubert J. M. 1996. Opposites in a dialogical self: Constructs 

as characters. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 9(1): 1-26. 

Hermans, Hubert J. M. 2001. The dialogical self: Toward a theory of 
personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology 7(3): 243-

281. 

Hermans, Hubert J. M. 2003. The construction and reconstruction of a 
dialogical self. Journal of Constructivist Psychology 16(2): 89-130. 

Hermans, Hubert J. M. 2018. Society in the self. A theory of identity in 

democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 

Hermans, Hubert. J. M. and Agniezska Hermans-Konopka. 2010. Dia-
logical self theory: Positioning and counter-positioning in a globaliz-

ing society. Cambridge University Press.  

Hubbs, Delaura L. and Charles F. Brand. 2005. The paper mirror: Un-
derstanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experiential Education 

28(1): 60-71. 

Hyers, Lauri L. 2018. Diary methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 
Kunt, Gergely. 2015. How do diaries begin? The narrative rites of ado-

lescent diaries in Hungary. European Journal of Life Writing 4: 30-

55. 

Larrain, Antonia and Andrés Haye. 2012. The role of rhetoric in a dia-
logical approach to thinking. Journal for the Theory of Social Behav-

iour 42(2): 220-237. 

Lejeune, Phillipe. 2009. On Diary. Manoa: University of Hawaii Press. 



746 Svačinová 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. Activity types and language. In Talk at 
work: Interaction in institutional settings, eds. Paul Drew and John 

Heritage, 66-100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Martinson, Deborah. 2003. In the presence of audience: The self in 
diaries and fiction. Ohio State University Press. 

McFerran, Shannon and Daniel G. Scott. 2013. The girls’ diary project: 

writing ourselves into being. Victoria: University of Victoria. 
Nienkamp, Jean. 2001. Internal rhetorics: Toward a history and theory 

of self-persuasion. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois 

University Press. 

Nir, Dina. 2012. Voicing inner conflict: From a dialogical to a negotia-
tional self. In Handbook of dialogical self theory, eds. Hubert J. M. 

Hermans and Thorsten Gieser, 284-300. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-

versity Press. 
Nir, Dina. 2016. Becoming the leader of your decisions. In Assessing 

and stimulating a dialogical self in groups, teams, cultures, and or-

ganizations, ed. Hubert J. M. Hermans, 1-17. Springer. 

Oleś, Piotr and Małgorzata Puchalska-Wasyl. 2010. Between nature and 
culture? Dialogicity as a basic human feature. In Studies in the psy-

chology of language and communication, ed. Barbara Bokus, 41-51. 

Warsaw: MATRIX Publisher. 
Paperno, Irina. 2004. What can be done with diaries? The Russian Re-

view 63(4): 561-573. 

Rainer, Tristine. 1980. The new diary. How to use a journal for self-
guidance and expanded creativity. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons. 

Rendall, Steven. 1986. On diaries. Diacritics 16(3): 56-65. 

Rocci, Andrea. 2005. Connective predicates in monologic and dialogic 

argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences 5: 97-118.  
Rottenberg-Rosler, Biri, Shifra Schonmann and Emanuel Berman. 2009. 

Dear Diary: Catharsis and narratives of aloneness in adolescents’ dia-

ries. Enquire 2(1): 133-156. 
Sederberg, Kathryn. 2017. Writing through crisis: Time, history, futurity 

in German diaries of the second world war. Biography 40(2): 323-

341. 
Seiffge-Krenke, Inge. 1997. Imaginary companions in adolescence: Sign 

of a deficient or positive development? Journal of Adolescence 20(2): 

137-154. 

Sinats, Petra, Daniel G. Scott, Shannon McFerran, Madelaine Hittos, 
Carys Cragg, Theresa Leblanc and Daniela Brooks. 2005. Writing 

ourselves into being: Writing as spiritual self-care for adolescent 

girls. Part two. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality 10(3): 
263-276. 



Characterizing Reflective Diary-Writing as an Argumentative Activity Type 747 

 

© Iva Svačinová. Informal Logic, Vol. 42, No. 4 (2022), pp. 705–747. 

Surd-Büchele, Stefanie. 2011. On the relations between writing and 
thinking. Tätigkeitstheorie: E-Journal for Activity Theoretical Re-

search in Germany 2(5): 121-141. 

Svačinová, Iva. 2021. Pragma-dialectical reconstruction of crisis diary 
writing as a communicative activity type. Argumentation 35(2): 237-

264. 

Vygotsky, Lev. 1987. Thought and language, ed. Alex Kozulin. 

Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 
Wagemans, Jean H. M. 2016. Constructing a periodic table of argu-

ments. In OSSA conference archive. URL accessed 5 October 2021: 

<https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommen

taries/106>. 

Wal, Marijke J. van der and Gijsbert Rutten. 2013. Ego-documents in a 
historical-sociolinguistic perspective. In Touching the past: Studies in 

the historical sociolinguistics of ego-documents, eds. Marijke J. van 

der Wal and Gijsbert Rutten, 1-18. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John 
Benjamins Publishing company. 

Zammuner, Vanda L. 2001. Diary kinds and functions, and adolescents’ 

motives for keeping a diary. In Proceedings of the 3rd conference of 
the International Society for Quality of Life Studies (ISQOLS), eds. 

Ferran Casas and Carme Saurina, 453-474. Girona: Universidad de 

Girona. 

Zampa, Marta and Daniel Perrin. 2016. Arguing with oneself. Journal of 
Argumentation in Context 5(1): 9-28. 

Zittoun, Tania. 2014. Three dimensions of dialogical movement. New 

Ideas in Psychology 32: 99-106. 
Zittoun, Tania and Alex Gillespie. 2012. Using diaries and self-writings 

as data in psychological research. In Emerging methods in psycholo-

gy, eds. Emily Abbey and Seth Surgan, 1-26. New Brunswick/New 

Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/106
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA11/papersandcommentaries/106