Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 447–466 | Cite as

Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise

  • Christopher W. TindaleEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the ways recent models have brought rhetoric into argumentation theory. In particular, it explores the rationale for and role of rhetoric in the strategic maneuvering project of pragma-dialectics and compares it with the author’s own implementation of rhetorical features. A case is made for considering the active ways audiences influence the strategies of arguers and for seeing the role of rhetoric in argumentation as both fundamental and reasonable on its own terms.

Keywords

audience Olbrechts-Tyteca Perelman pragma-dialectics rhetorical argumentation rhetorical features strategic maneuvering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aristotle: 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakhtin, M.: 1981, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.), in M. Holquist (ed.), University of Austin Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhtin, M.: 1986, Speech Genres & Other Later Essays, C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.), in V. W. McGee (ed.), University of Texas Press, AustinGoogle Scholar
  4. Crosswhite James (1996). The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1995). ‹Perelman and the Fallacies’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 122–133Google Scholar
  6. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999a, ‹Delivering the Goods in a Critical Discussion’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 163–168, Sic Sat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  7. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999b, ‹William the Silent’s Argumentative Discourse’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 168–172, Sic Sat, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  8. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (1999c). Strategic Manoeuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2000a, ‹Rhetoric in Pragma-Dialectics’. Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric, 1. Retrieved from www.argumentation.spb.ru/2000_1/index.htmGoogle Scholar
  10. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2000b). Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2001). Clear Thinking in Troubled Times: An Integrated Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. Informal Logic 21(2): 17–30Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002a). Strategic Manoeuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat., 13–29Google Scholar
  13. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002b). Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 131–59Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‹More About Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of the Tu Quoque’, in J. A. Blair et al. (eds.), Informal Logic @25. 12ppGoogle Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2005, ‹Theoretical Construction and Argumentative Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalised Types of Argumentative Activity’, in D. Hitchcock (ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, pp. 75–84, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, ONGoogle Scholar
  16. Fahnestock J. (1999). Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Foss S. K., Griffin C. L. (1995). Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gross A., Dearin R. (2003). Chaim Perelman. Albany: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  20. Kennedy G. (1991). Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Levi D. (2000) In Defense of Informal Logic. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  22. McCabe M. M. (1994). Arguments in Context: Aristotle’s Defense of Rhetoric. In D.J. Furley, A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 129–165Google Scholar
  23. Perelman C. (1989). The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments. In R. D. Dearin (ed.), The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. New York: University Press of America, pp. 239–251Google Scholar
  24. Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver (trans.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  25. Pinto R. C. (2001). Argument, Inference and Dialectic: Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  26. Plato: 1997, Complete Works. Ed. J. M. Cooper, Hackett, Indianapolis, INGoogle Scholar
  27. Reboul O. (1989). The Figure and the Argument. In M. Meyer (ed.), From Metaphysics to Rhetoric. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic, pp. 169–181Google Scholar
  28. Rees M. A. van (2002). Argumentative Functions of Dissociation in Every-day Discussions. In H. V. Hansen et al. (eds.) Argumentation and Its Applications. Windsor: OSSA, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  29. Rees M. A. van (2005). Indications of Dissociation. In F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.) Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. 53–67Google Scholar
  30. Schiappa E. (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois PressGoogle Scholar
  31. Tindale C. W. (1999) Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argumentation. Albany, NY: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  32. Tindale C. W. (2004) Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SageGoogle Scholar
  33. Toulmin S. (2001). Return to Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations