Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 55–69 | Cite as

Persuasive Argumentation Versus Manipulation

  • Ana Laura NettelEmail author
  • Georges Roque
Article

Abstract

This article deals with the relationship between argumentation and persuasion. It defends the idea that these two concepts are not as opposed as all too often said. If it is important to recognize their differences (there are argumentative discourses without persuasion and persuasive discourses without argumentation), there is nevertheless an overlap, in which characteristics are taken from both. We propose to call this overlap “persuasive argumentation”. In order to bridge argumentation and persuasion, we will first distinguish the latter from manipulation. In the second part of this article, we will analyze four cases of persuasive argumentation: the enthymeme, a few rhetorical figures, narration and visual argumentation.

Keywords

Persuasion Persuasive argumentation Manipulation Enthymeme Visual argumentation Rhetorical figures 

References

  1. Amossy, Ruth, and Roselyne Koren. 2009. Rhétorique et argumentation: Approches croisées. Argumentation et analyse du discours 2: 1–21.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 2005. Poetics and Rhetoric, ed. Eugene Garver. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar
  3. Barthes, Roland. 1970. L’Ancienne Rhétorique. Aide-mémoire. Communications 16: 172–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benveniste, Émile. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  5. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 1996. Toward a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 33–1: 1–10.Google Scholar
  6. Birdsell, David S., and Leo Groarke. 2006. Outlines of a theory of visual argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 103–113.Google Scholar
  7. Blair, Anthony J. 2004. The rhetoric of visual arguments. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 41–61. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Borrego-Pérez, Manuel (ed.). 2002. L’exemplum narratif dans le discours argumentatif (XVIe-XXe siècles). Besançon: Presses universitaires Franc-Comtoises.Google Scholar
  9. Breton, Philippe. 2000. La Parole manipulée. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  10. Burnyeat, M.F. 1994. Enthymeme: Aristotle’s on the logic of persuasion. In Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. D.J. Furley and A. Nehamas, 3–55. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burnyeat, M.F. 1996. Enthymeme. Aristotle on the rationality of rhetoric. In Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric, ed. A. Oksenberg Rorty, 88–115. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  12. Copi, Irving M., and Carl Cohen. 1994. Introduction to logic. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  13. Danblon, Emmanuelle, et al. (eds.). 2008. Argumentation et narration. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  14. Davidson, Donald. 2001. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ducrot, Oswald, and Jean-Marie Schaeffer. 1995. Nouveau Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  16. Dyck, T.Ed. 2002. Topos and enthymeme. Rhetorica 20: 105–118.Google Scholar
  17. Fleming, David. 1996. Can pictures be arguments? Argumentation and Advocacy 33–1: 11–22.Google Scholar
  18. Genette, Gérard. 1968. Vraisemblance et motivation. Communications 11: 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Genette, Gérard. 1972. Figures III. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  20. Greimas, Algirdas Julien, and Joseph Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  21. Grimaldi, William M.A. 1972. Studies in the philosophy of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner.Google Scholar
  22. Hariman, Robert, and Lucaites John Louis. 2007. No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture, and liberal democracy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Helmers, Marguerite. 2004. Framing the fine arts through rhetoric. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill, and Marguerite Helmers, 63–86. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Hill, Charles A. 2004. The psychology of rhetorical images. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 25–40. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, Charles A., and Marguerite Helmers. 2004. Introduction. In Defining visual rhetorics, ed. Charles A. Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 1–23. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, Ralf H. 2003. Why “Visual Arguments” aren’t arguments. In Informal Logic at 25, ed. H.V. Hansen, et al. 1–13. Windsor, Ont.: University of Windsor, CD Rom.Google Scholar
  27. Jowett, Garth S., and Victoria O’Donnell. 1992. Propaganda and persuasion. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Kibédi Varga, Aaron. 1989. Discours, récit, image. Liège-Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
  29. Kibédi Varga, Aaron. 1990. Une rhétorique aléatoire: agir par l’image. In Figures et conflits rhétoriques, ed. Michel Meyer and Alain Lempereur, 193–199.Google Scholar
  30. Landowski, Eric and Peter Stockinger. 1985. Problématique de la manipulation: de la schématisation narrative au calcul stratégique. Degrés 44: c 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Le Guern-Forel, Odile. 1981. Approches d’une étude argumentative de l’image. In L’Argumentation, 165–178. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.Google Scholar
  32. Meyer, K.R. 2008. Narrative argumentation: Regarding narrative as argument and the resulting need for developing narrative literacy skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th Annual Convention, TBA, San Diego, CA. PDF document. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p256258_index.html. Accessed 17 April 2011.
  33. Nettel, Ana Laura. 1991. Planification, pouvoir et légitimité: La planification régionale dans un pays fédédal: Le cas du Mexique (19821988). Doctoral dissertation, University Aix-Marseille III.Google Scholar
  34. Nettel, Ana Laura. 2005. The Power of image and the image of power: The case of law. In Word and Image 21–2: 136–149.Google Scholar
  35. Nettel Ana Laura. 2011. The enthymeme between persuasion and argumentation. In Proceedings of the seventh ISSA Congress June 29—July 2 2010, ed. F. van Eemeren et al., Chapter 122, p. 1357–1365. CD-ROM. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  36. O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1990. Persuasion: Theory and practice. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2002. The persuasive effects of variation in standpoint articulation. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. Frans van Eemeren, 65–82. Amsterdam: Sic Sat and Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  38. Ouwerkerk, Annemiek. 1993. Helping hands: Some basic remarks on argumentation in the visual arts. Argumentation 7: 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Packard, Vance. 1958. The hidden persuaders. New York: Pocket Book.Google Scholar
  40. Parret, Herman. 1987. Prolégomènes à la théorie de l’énonciation. De Husserl à la pragmatique. Bern, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  41. Perelman, Chaïm. 1970. Le Champ de l’argumentation. Brussels: Editions de Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  42. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1970. Traité de l’argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Sociologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  43. Plantin, Christian. 2009. Un lieu pour les figures dans la théorie de l’argumentation. In Argumentation et analyse du discours 2. http://aad.revues.org/215. Accessed 23 July 2011.
  44. Plantin, Christian. 2011. Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Principes et méthodes pour l’étude du discours émotionné. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  45. Pozuelo Yvancos, José María. 1986. Retórica y narrativa: la narratio. Epos 2: 231–252.Google Scholar
  46. Pratkanis, Anthony., and Elliot Aronson. 2001. Art of propaganda: The everyday use and abuse of persuasion. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  47. Quintilien. 1975. Institution oratoire. Paris: Société d’édition des Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
  48. Reboul, Olivier. 1991. Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  49. Remigy, Marie-José. 1992. Rhétorique du non-verbal: rhétorique sans paroles ou aspects non-verbaux de la persuasion? In Rhétoriques de…, ed. Olivier Reboul and J.F. Garcia, 47–67.Google Scholar
  50. Roque, Georges. 2004. Prolégomènes à l’analyse de l’argumentation visuelle. In Chaïm Perelman. Direito, Retórica e Teoria da Argumentação, ed. Eduardo Chagas Oliveira, 95–114. Feira de Santana (Brazil): Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana.Google Scholar
  51. Roque, Georges. 2008. Political rhetoric in visual images. In Dialogue and rhetoric, ed. E. Weigand, 185–193. Amsterdam/Philadelphy: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  52. Roque, Georges. 2010. What is visual in visual argumentation? In Arguments cultures, ed. J. Ritola, 1–9. Proceedings of OSSA 09 Congress, CD-ROM, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation. University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  53. Roque, Georges. 2011. Rhétorique visuelle et argumentation visuelle. Semen 32: 91–106.Google Scholar
  54. Scott Linda, M., and Rajeev Batra (eds.). 2003. Persuasive imagery: A consumer response perspective. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Seidman, Steven A. 2008. Posters, propanganda and persuasion in election campaigns around the world and through history. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. Sherwin, R.K. 1994. Law frames: Historical truth and narrative necessity in a criminal case. Stanford Law Review 47–1: 39–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Smith, Valerie J. 2007. Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumentation of the twenty-first century. Argumentation and Advocacy 43: 114–123.Google Scholar
  58. Soulez, Guillaume. 2011. Rhétorique, public et “manipulation”. In L’Argumentation, ed. Nicole d’Almeida, 135–152. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
  59. Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  60. Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Williams, Mark A.E. 2003. Arguing with style: How persuasion and the enthymeme work together in on invention, Book 3. Southern Communication Journal 68: 136–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Law DepartmentUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana—Azcapotzalco (UAM-A)MexicoMexico
  2. 2.Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)CRAL, EHESS/CNRSParisFrance

Personalised recommendations