, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 453–474

Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values of Argumentation: The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation



I distinguish four current strategies for integrating a rhetorical perspective within normative models for argumentation. Then I propose and argue for a fifth one by defending a conception of acts of arguing as having a rhetorical dimension that provides conditions for characterizing good argumentation, understood as argumentation that justifies a target-claim.


Argumentative value Constitutive value monism Instrumental value monism Normative model Persuasion Rhetoric Rhetorical argumentation Rhetorical dimension of argumentation Rhetorical value Value monism Value pluralism 


  1. Bermejo-Luque. 2009. Two conceptions of rhetoric and their role in argumentation theory. Paper presented in the 2009 OSSA conference.Google Scholar
  2. Bermejo-Luque. forthcoming. Giving reasons. A linguistic approach to argumentation theory.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K., and R.M. Harnish. 1979. Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Biro, J., and H. Siegel. 1992. Normativity, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In Argumentation illuminated, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, et al., 85–103. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  5. Goodwin, J. 2005. Argument has no function. In The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, ed. D. Hitchcock, 165–166. Hamilton: OSSA.Google Scholar
  6. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3, speech acts, ed. P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectics from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14: 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Kock, C. 2007. The domain of rhetorical argumentation. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 785–788. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  10. Kock, C. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23: 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moore, G.E. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Tindale, C. 1999. Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  13. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2000a. “Rhetoric in Pragma-dialectics”, in Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric,
  15. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2000b. Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. The case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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. van Houtlosser, 131–160. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Wenzel, J.W. 1982. On fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 204–213.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophySpanish National Research InstituteMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations