Argumentation

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 61–80 | Cite as

Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Leading contemporary argumentation theories such as those of Ralph Johnson, van Eemeren and Houtlosser, and Tindale, in their attempt to address rhetoric, tend to define rhetorical argumentation with reference to (a) the rhetorical arguer’s goal (to persuade effectively), and (b) the means he employs to do so. However, a central strand in the rhetorical tradition itself, led by Aristotle, and arguably the dominant view, sees rhetorical argumentation as defined with reference to the domain of issues discussed. On that view, the domain of rhetorical argumentation is centered on choice of action in the civic sphere, and the distinctive nature of issues in this domain is considered crucial. Hence, argumentation theories such as those discussed, insofar as they do not see rhetoric as defined by its distinctive domain, apply an understanding of rhetoric that is historically inadequate. It is further suggested that theories adopting this understanding of rhetoric risk ignoring important distinctive features of argumentation about action.

Keywords

Argumentation Rhetoric Aristotle Rhetoric Nicomachean ethics Eudemian ethics Deliberative Choice Argumentation theory Ralph Johnson Frans van Eemeren Peter Houtlosser Christopher Tindale Domain of issues Rhetorical argumentation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anon. 1964. Ad C. Herennium: De ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium), with an English translation by Harry Caplan (Loeb Classical Library, 403). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anscombe, G.E.M. 1957. Intention. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1926. The works of Aristotle translated into English under the Editorship of W. D. Ross, Vol. xxii. The Art of Rhetoric (trans: Freese, J.H.) (Loeb Classical Library, 193). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, J.L. 1953. How to talk-some simple ways. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 53: 227–246.Google Scholar
  5. Bitzer, L.F. 1968. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 1: 1–14.Google Scholar
  6. Blair, H. 1783/2004. Lectures on rhetoric and belles lettres, ed. Linda Ferreira-Buckley and S. Michael Halloran. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boethius, Anicius Manlius Severinus. 1978. Boethius’s De topicis differentiis. Translated, with notes and essays on the text, by Eleonore Stump. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, G. 1776/1969. The philosophy of rhetoric by George Campbell, ed. Lloyd F. Bitzer, Foreword by David Potter. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cicero, M.T. 1967. De Oratore; De fato; Paradoxa stoicorum; De partitione oratoria (trans: Sutton, E.W. and Rackham, H.). (Loeb Classical Library, 368). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. Cicero, M.T. 1968. De inventione; De optimo genere oratorum; Topica. With an English translation by H.M. Hubell (Loeb Classical Library, 386). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Cox, V. 2003. Rhetoric and humanism in Quattrocento Venice. Renaissance Quarterly 56: 652–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dilts, M.R., and G.A. Kennedy. 1997. Two greek rhetorical treatises from the roman empire: Introduction, text and translation of the arts of rhetoric attributed to anonymous Seguerianus and to Apsines of Gadara. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
  13. Fahnestock, J. 2003. Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fumaroli, M. 1983. Rhetoric, politics, and society: From Italian Ciceronianism to French Classicism. In Renaissance eloquence, ed. J.J. Murphy, 253–273. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garver, E. 2000. Comments on “Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R.J. Reynolds”. Argumentation 14: 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gross, A.G. 1990. The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gross, A.G., and A.E. Walzer (eds.). 2000. Rereading Aristotle’s rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Halm, K. 1863. Rhetores Latini minores: Ex codicibus maximam partem primum adhibitis emendabat Carolus Halm. Teubner: Lipsiae [Leipzig].Google Scholar
  19. Hauser, G.A. 1999. Aristotle on epideictic: The formation of public morality. Rhetoric Society Quarterly 29: 5–23.Google Scholar
  20. Hauser, G.A. 2002. Introduction to rhetorical theory, 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  21. Heath, M. 1995. Hermogenes on issues: Strategies of argument in later Greek rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heath, M. 2004. Menander: A rhetor in context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, R.H. 1996. The need for a dialectical tier in arguments. In Proceedings of the international conference on formal and applied practical reasoning, ed. Dov M. Gabbay and Hans Jürgen Ohlbach, 349–360.Google Scholar
  24. Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, R.H. 2002. Manifest rationality reconsidered: Reply to my fellow symposiasts. Argumentation 16: 311–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kant, I. 1914 [1790]. Kritik der Urteilskraft. In Werke, Vol. V., ed. Ernst Cassirer and Hermann Cohen. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
  27. Kennedy, G.A. 1991. Aristotle on rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Newly translated with introduction, notes, and appendixes by George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, G.A. 1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy, G.A. 1999. Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular tradition from ancient to modern times, 2nd Revised edition. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kock, C. 2007. Norms of legitimate dissensus. Informal Logic 27: 179–196.Google Scholar
  31. Larmore, C. 1996. The morals of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Locke, J. 1959 [1690]. An essay concerning human understanding. Collated and annotated, with prolegomena, biographical, critical, and historical by Alexander Campbell Fraser, Vol. I–II. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  33. Long, C.P. 2002. The ontological reappropriation of phronēsis. Continental Philosophy Review 35: 35–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mill, J.S. 1969 [1863]. ‘Utilitarianism’. In The collected works of John Stuart Mill, general editor John M. Robson, Vol. X. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  35. Miller, J.M., M.H. Prosser, and T.W. Benson. 1973. Readings in medieval rhetoric. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Perelman, C. 1970. The new rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. The great ideas today, 272–312. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Press.Google Scholar
  37. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press (Original edition: 1958, La nouvelle rhétorique. Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses universitaires de France).Google Scholar
  38. Rawls, J. 1989. The domain of the political and overlapping consensus. New York University Law Review 64: 233–255.Google Scholar
  39. Rawls, J. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Remer, G. 1999. Political oratory and conversation: Cicero versus deliberative democracy. Political Theory 27: 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rescher, N. 1993. Pluralism: Against the demand for consensus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  42. Robert, J.E. 1960. Book three of Brunetto Latini’s Tresor: An English translation and assessment of its contribution to rhetorical theory. Diss. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  43. Russell, Donald A., ed. and trans. 2001. Quintilian. The Orator’s education, II.xvi.9–10. Cambridge: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  44. Searle, J.R. 1979a. What is an intentional state? Mind 88: 74–92. New Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Searle, J.R. 1979b. Expression and meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Searle, J.R. 1983. Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tindale, C. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tindale, C. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 1999. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies 1: 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2000. Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework: The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2001. Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis within a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocacy 37: 150–157.Google Scholar
  52. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic manoeuvring: Maintaining a delicate balance. In The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (Argumentation Library 6), ed. F.H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 131–160. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisers.Google Scholar
  53. Vico, G. 1996. The art of rhetoric (Institutiones Oratoriae, 1711–1741). From the definitive latin text and notes, Italian commentary and introduction by Giuliano Crifò (trans and ed.: Pinton, Giorgio A. and Shippee, Arthur W.). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  54. Walker, J. 2000. Rhetoric and poetics in antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Wenzel, J.W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. R. Trapp, and J. Schuetz, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, T. 1994. The art of rhetoric (1560). Edited with Notes and Commentary by Peter E. Medine. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations