Abstract
Against the background of the standard pragma-dialectical theory, some fifteen years ago Van Eemeren en Houtlosser set about to extend the available analytic and evaluative tools by introducing the notion of ‘strategic maneuvering’ (van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Dialectic and rhetoric: the warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, pp. 131–159, 2002). Strategic maneuvering refers to the arguers’ continual efforts to reconcile in their argumentative moves aiming for effectiveness with being reasonable. Strategic maneuvering takes place in all stages of the argumentative process of resolving a difference of opinion on the merits.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The concept of activity type is explained in more detail in van Eemeren (2010, pp. 129–163). Levinson described an activity type as a “fuzzy category whose focal members are goal-defined, socially constituted, bounded, events with constraints on participants, setting, and so on, but above all on the kinds of allowable contributions” (1992, p. 69).
- 2.
We use the term institutionalized in a very broad sense, so that it refers to any established macro-context in which certain communicative conventions have developed.
- 3.
This approach connects with “rational choice institutionalism” within New Institutionalism (March and Olsen 1984, p. 734). According to Hall and Taylor, rational choice institutionalism draws our attention to “the role that strategic interaction between actors plays in the determination of political outcomes” (1996, p. 951).
- 4.
- 5.
As explained in van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2005), communicative activity types are not on a par with theoretical constructs such as the pragma-dialectical ideal model of a critical discussion. While theoretical constructs are based on analytic considerations concerning the best way of reaching a certain (abstract) objective (such as resolving a difference of opinion on the merits), communicative activity types are empirically-based prototypes of conventionalized communicative practices. By distinguishing ideal models in this way between from argumentative activity types, we deviate from approaches to argumentative discourse types such as Walton and Krabbe’s (1995). See van Eemeren et al. (2010).
- 6.
This is, for example, the case when the writer of the love letter or the one who says the prayer tries to make things go his way by supporting the desired outcome of the speech event with arguments.
- 7.
- 8.
As we showed earlier, in particular when agriculture or industry is at issue, MEPs who feel that their country will not really benefit from the legislation that is proposed (or may even suffer from it) are inclined to promote views or propose amendments that better combine serving the interests of the European Union with protecting their national interests (van Eemeren and Garssen 2010).
- 9.
See van Eemeren and Garssen (2010).
- 10.
There usually is a real opposition between the European Parliament and the two other European institutions.
- 11.
Ede and Lunsford (1984) distinguish between the ‘audience addressed’, which consists in principle of people who are physically present when a speech is delivered, and the ‘audience invoked’, which refers to the intended audience. This is not the same distinction as I make here, because people who happen to listen in can be present when the argumentation is delivered without being the intended audience. See also van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004, p. 99).
- 12.
- 13.
Because pragma-dialecticians are interested in how argumentative discourse is used to convince rather than merely persuade, they presume that the audience consists of discussants that are in principle out to establish in a reasonable way whether the standpoints at issue are acceptable. For the distinction between convincing and persuading, see van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, pp. 48–49).
- 14.
Although it is often not recognized, according to Tindale, “rhetorical argumentation is dialogical. That is, there is a dynamic sense of dialogue alive in the context” (2004, p. 89). To pragma-dialecticians such a dialogical rhetoric makes it easier to establish connections with their own (dialogical) theoretical framework than would be the case if rhetoric were monological, as it often appears to be.
- 15.
For the kind of “framing” involved in this endeavor, see van Eemeren (2010,p. 112, 126–127).
- 16.
Endoxa refers to the views generally accepted in a specific culture or subculture. Referring to Aristotle’s Topics, Irwin (1988) defines endoxa as commonly held beliefs (p. 8) and “beliefs of the many or the wise or both” (p. 37).
- 17.
For the identity and correctness conditions of speech acts, see van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992, pp. 30–33).
- 18.
Tindale considers ‘the rhetorical audience’ to be a “complex and fluid” idea, because “audiences change, even in the course of argumentation” (2004, p. 21). Granting that during the exchange an audience my subtly change in a psychological sense, we only speak of a change of audience if some or all active members of the audience are no longer committed to the same definition of the difference of opinion or to the starting points previously agreed upon.
- 19.
If the members of an audience have different positions in the difference of opinion, the composite audience is called a multiple audience and if they have different starting point it is called a mixed audience (van Eemeren 2010, p. 110). In a great many cases a composite audience will be both multiple and mixed.
References
Andone, C. (2009). Accusing someone of an inconsistency as a confrontational way of strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 153–170). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Benoit, W. L., & D’Agostine, J. M. (1994). ‘The case of the midnight judges’ and multiple audience discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury v. Madison. Southern Communication Journal, 59, 89–96.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155–171.
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44, 936–957.
Ihnen, C. (2010). The analysis of pragmatic argumentation in law-making debates: Second reading of the terrorism bill in the British House of Commons. Controversia, 7(1), 91–107.
Irwin, T. (1988). Aristotle’s first principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1984). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. The American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–749.
Mohammed, D. (2009). Manoeuvring strategically in Prime Minister’s question time. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 171–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (N. Dame, Trans.). University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958).
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.
Tonnard, Y. (2009). Shifting the topic in Dutch parliament. How presentational choices can be instrumental in strategic manoeuvring. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 221–240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2009). In varietate concordia—United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. In OSSA Conference Archive. Hamilton, ON: OSSA.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2010). Constraints on political deliberation: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia, 7(1), 13–32.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation (pp. 168–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie. A dialectical perspective. In T. Suzuki, Y. Yano & T. Kato (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Tokyo conference on argumentation (pp. 37–40). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock, & D. Farr (Eds.), The uses of argument. Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84). Hamilton, ON: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., Ihnen, C., & Lewinski, M. (2010). Contextual considerations in the evaluation of argumentation. In C. Reed & C. T. Tindale (Eds.), Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument (pp. 115–132). London: King’s College Publications.
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (2015). Exploiting the Room for Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse Dealing with Audience Demand in the European Parliament. In: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_47
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_47
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20955-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)