Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 381–392 | Cite as

Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation

  • Frans H. van  EemerenEmail author
  • Peter Houtlosser
Open Access
Article

Abstract

As an introduction to the special issue on Perspectives on Strategic Maneuvering, this article provides a synthetic recapitulation of the various steps that were taken in developing the pragma-dialectical theory of strategic maneuvering. First, the concept of strategic maneuvering is described as a means to reconcile the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical aims. Second, strategic maneuvering is related to the various kinds of argumentative activity types in which it takes place. Third, the concept of dialectical profiles is discussed and the parameters that are pertinent to distinguishing between different types of strategic maneuvering. Fourth, the fallacies are viewed as derailment of strategic maneuvering. Fifth, as a case in point, strategic maneuvering with inconsistency is examined.

Keywords

argumentation argumentative activity type dialectic dialectical profile fallacy inconsistency pragma-dialectics rhetoric strategic maneuvering type of strategic maneuvering 

References

  1. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/ForisGoogle Scholar
  2. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  3. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., Plantin, Chr., Walton, D. N., Willard, C. A., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  6. Eemeren, F. H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). 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: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies, Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press, Methuen, London.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation. Vol. II (pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar
  9. Kauffeld, F. (2002). Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In: F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 97–118). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  10. Kienpointner, M. (2006). How to present fallacious messages persuasively: The case of the “Nigeria Spam Letters”. In: P. Houtlosser, & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 161–173). Mahwah, N.J./London: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  11. Krabbe, E. C. W. (2002) Meeting in the house of Callias: An historical perspective on rhetoric and dialectic. In: F. H. van Eemeren, & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis (pp. 29–40). Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar
  12. Leeman, A. D. (1992). Rhetoric versus Argumentation Theory. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (12–22). Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar
  13. Leff, M.: 2002, The relation between rhetoric and dialectic in a classical and a modern perspective. in F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser (eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, pp. 53–63, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht etc.Google Scholar
  14. Leff, M. (2006). Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument. In: P. Houtlosser, & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 199–209). Mahwah, N.J./London: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  15. Tindale, Ch. W. (2004). Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks etc.: SageGoogle Scholar
  16. Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Wenzel, J. W.: 1990, Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, Logic, in R.␣Trapp and J. Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in the Honor of Wayne Brockriede, pp. 9–26, Waveland: Prospect Heights, IllGoogle Scholar
  19. Zarefsky, D. (2006). The ten rules of pragma-dialectics and validity in argumentation. In: P. Houtlosser, & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 313–323). Mahwah, N.J./London: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversiteit van AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations