, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 3–19

From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric



In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: \( \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} \) The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument.


antithesis burden of proof contrarium enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdullaev S. (1977) Zu den Möglichkeiten der Transposition der Satzarten im Deutschen – Die Grundstrukturen der rhetorischen Frage und des imperativischen Ausrufs. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 14:263–270Google Scholar
  2. Anzilotti G. I. (1982) The Rhetorical Question as an Indirect Speech Device in English and Italian. Canadian Modern Language Review 38:290–302Google Scholar
  3. Åqvist L. E. G. (1965) A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogations, Part I: Analysis, Filosofiska Föreningen, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  4. Barth E. M., Martens J. L. (1977/78) Argumentum Ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectics. Logique et Analyse. Nouvelle Série 20:76–96Google Scholar
  5. Belnap N. D. Jr. (1963) An Analysis of Questions: Preliminary Report, Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  6. Blankenship K. L., Craig T. Y. (2006) Rhetorical Question Use and Resistance to Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 25(2):111–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobzien S. (1996) Stoic Syllogistic. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14:133–192Google Scholar
  8. Brinton A. (1985) A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63:50–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brinton A. (1995) The Ad Hominem. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 213–222Google Scholar
  10. Burnyeat M. (1994) Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion. In: Furley D. J., Nehamas A. (eds) Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 39–46Google Scholar
  11. Butler, H. E. (ed.): 1922, The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. With an English translation, Vol. III, William Heinemann, London/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. (1982) Language Variables, Attitudes, and Persuasion. In: Ryan E. B., Giles H. (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. Edward Arnold, London, pp. 189–207Google Scholar
  13. Caplan, H. (ed.): 1954, [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi. With an English translation, William Heinemann, London/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Conrad R. (1982) Rhetorische Fragen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 27:420–428Google Scholar
  15. Eemeren F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/CinnaminsonGoogle Scholar
  16. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1992a) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  17. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1992b) Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation 6:141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst (1995a) Argumentum ad Hominem: A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 223–228Google Scholar
  19. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1995b) The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 130–144Google Scholar
  20. Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (1999) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1:479–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002a) Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In: Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 131–159Google Scholar
  23. Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., (2002b) Strategic Maneuvering With the Burden of Proof. In: van Eemeren F. H. (ed) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam/Newport News, VA pp. 13–28Google Scholar
  24. Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Meuffels B. (2005) The Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Freedom Rule. In: van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. (eds), Argumentation in Practice. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 349–365Google Scholar
  25. Engel S. M. (1994) The Five Forms of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14:19–36Google Scholar
  26. Fogelin R. J. (1987) Some Figures of Speech. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, pp. 263–272Google Scholar
  27. Frank J. (1990) You Call That a Rhetorical Question? Forms and Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 14:723–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frede M. (1974) Die stoische Logik. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  29. Grésillon A. (1980) Zum linguistischen Status rhetorischer Fragen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 8:273–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies. Methuen, London; 1998, repr. with a Preface by J. Plecnik and J. Hoaglund and a Current Bibliography by M. F. Schmidt and H. V. Hansen, Vale Press, Newport News, VAGoogle Scholar
  31. Hitchcock D. (2005) The Peculiarities of Stoic Propositional Logic. In: Peacock K. A., Irvine A. D. (eds), Mistakes of Reason: Essays in Honour of John Woods. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 224–242Google Scholar
  32. Hitchcock D. (2006) The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. In: Houtlosser P., van Rees A. (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for F.H. van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 109–119Google Scholar
  33. Ilie C. (1994) What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts, Almqvist & Wiksell, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacquette D. (1994) Many Questions Begs the Question (But Questions Do Not Beg the Question). Argumentation 8:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraus M. (2006) Arguing by Question: A Toulminian Reading of Cicero’s Account of the Enthymeme. In: Hitchcock D., Verheij B. (eds), Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Krifka M. (1995) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items. Linguistic Analysis 25:1–49Google Scholar
  37. Mates B (1953) Stoic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  38. Meibauer J. (1986) Rhetorische Fragen. Max Niemeyer, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  39. O’Toole R. R., Jennings R. E. (2004) The Megarians and the Stoics. In: Gabbay D. M., Woods J. (eds) Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 1: Greek, Indian and Arabian Logic. Elsevier North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 397–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T., Heesacker M. (1981) Effects of Rhetorical Questions on Persuasion: A Cognitive Response Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:432–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reinhardt T. (2003) Marcus Tullius Cicero, Topica. Edited with a Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  42. Riposati, B.: 1947, Studi sui ‹Topica’ di Cicerone, Società editrice ‹Vita e pensiero’, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  43. Rohde H. (2006) Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives. San Diego Linguistics Papers 2:134–168Google Scholar
  44. Rooy R. van (2003) Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance. Journal of Semantics 20:239–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sadock, J. M.: 1971, ‹Queclaratives’, in Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 223–232Google Scholar
  46. Schmidt-Radefeldt J. (1977) On So-called ‹Rhetorical’ Questions. Journal of Pragmatics 1:375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Searle J. R. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts. In: Cole P., Morgan J. L. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 59–82Google Scholar
  48. Searle J. R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Slot P. (1993) How Can You Say That? Rhetorical Questions in Argumentative Texts. Ifott, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  50. Stump E. (1988) Boethius’s In Ciceronis Topica. Translated, with Notes and an Introduction. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2003, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Walton D. N. (1985) Arguer’s Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation and Fallacy. Greenwood Press, Westport, CTGoogle Scholar
  53. Walton D. N. (1987) The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1:317–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walton D. N. (1988) Questions-Asking Fallacies. In: Meyer M. (ed), Questions and Questioning. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 195–221Google Scholar
  55. Walton D. N. (1991a) Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. Greenwood Press, New York/Westport, CT/LondonGoogle Scholar
  56. Walton D. N. (1991b) Critical Faults and Fallacies of Questioning. Journal of Pragmatics 15:337–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Walton D. N. (1996) Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof. Argumentation 10:47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Walton D. N. (1998) Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/LondonGoogle Scholar
  59. Woods J., Walton D. (1976) Ad Hominem. Philosophical Forum 8:1–20Google Scholar
  60. Zillman D. (1972) Rhetorical Elicitation of Agreement in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21:159–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zillman D. (1974) Rhetorical Elicitation of Concession in Persuasion. The Journal of Social Psychology 94:223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philologisches SeminarUniversität TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations