Argumentation

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 49–70

In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics

Authors

    • ILIAS and University of Amsterdam
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10503-012-9277-4

Cite this article as:
van Eemeren, F.H. Argumentation (2013) 27: 49. doi:10.1007/s10503-012-9277-4

Abstract

According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation theory the relationship between the two, captured in Aristotle’s term antistrophos, is lost. According to van Eemeren, this relationship, which he considers crucial to a full-fledged argumentation theory, has been recovered in extended pragma-dialectics with the help of the theoretical notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring.’

Keywords

AntistrophosAristotleDialecticEffectivenessPragma-dialecticsReasonablenessRhetoric

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012