Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper discusses some of the ways recent models have brought rhetoric into argumentation theory. In particular, it explores the rationale for and role of rhetoric in the strategic maneuvering project of pragma-dialectics and compares it with the author’s own implementation of rhetorical features. A case is made for considering the active ways audiences influence the strategies of arguers and for seeing the role of rhetoric in argumentation as both fundamental and reasonable on its own terms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle: 1984, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Ed. J. Barnes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

  • Bakhtin, M.: 1981, The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.), in M. Holquist (ed.), University of Austin Press, Austin

  • Bakhtin, M.: 1986, Speech Genres & Other Later Essays, C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans.), in V. W. McGee (ed.), University of Texas Press, Austin

  • Crosswhite James (1996). The Rhetoric of Reason: Writing and the Attractions of Argument. Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1995). ‹Perelman and the Fallacies’ Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 122–133

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999a, ‹Delivering the Goods in a Critical Discussion’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 163–168, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 1999b, ‹William the Silent’s Argumentative Discourse’, in F. H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 168–172, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (1999c). Strategic Manoeuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1(4): 479–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2000a, ‹Rhetoric in Pragma-Dialectics’. Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric, 1. Retrieved from www.argumentation.spb.ru/2000_1/index.htm

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2000b). Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14: 293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2001). Clear Thinking in Troubled Times: An Integrated Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. Informal Logic 21(2): 17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002a). Strategic Manoeuvering with the Burden of Proof. In F. H. van Eemeren (ed.) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam: Sic Sat., 13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002b). 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, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 131–59

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‹More About Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of the Tu Quoque’, in J. A. Blair et al. (eds.), Informal Logic @25. 12pp

  • van Eemeren, F. H. and P. Houtlosser: 2005, ‹Theoretical Construction and Argumentative Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalised Types of Argumentative Activity’, in D. Hitchcock (ed.), The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University, pp. 75–84, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Hamilton, ON

  • Fahnestock J. (1999). Rhetorical Figures in Science. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss S. K., Griffin C. L. (1995). Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross A., Dearin R. (2003). Chaim Perelman. Albany: State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R. H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy G. (1991). Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi D. (2000) In Defense of Informal Logic. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe M. M. (1994). Arguments in Context: Aristotle’s Defense of Rhetoric. In D.J. Furley, A. Nehamas (eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 129–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C. (1989). The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments. In R. D. Dearin (ed.), The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman: Statement and Response. New York: University Press of America, pp. 239–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation, J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver (trans.), University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

  • Pinto R. C. (2001). Argument, Inference and Dialectic: Collected Papers on Informal Logic with an Introduction by Hans V. Hansen. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Plato: 1997, Complete Works. Ed. J. M. Cooper, Hackett, Indianapolis, IN

  • Reboul O. (1989). The Figure and the Argument. In M. Meyer (ed.), From Metaphysics to Rhetoric. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic, pp. 169–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees M. A. van (2002). Argumentative Functions of Dissociation in Every-day Discussions. In H. V. Hansen et al. (eds.) Argumentation and Its Applications. Windsor: OSSA, 14 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees M. A. van (2005). Indications of Dissociation. In F. H. van Eemeren, P. Houtlosser (eds.) Argumentation in Practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. 53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiappa E. (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale C. W. (1999) Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argumentation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale C. W. (2004) Rhetorical Argumentation: Principles of Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin S. (2001). Return to Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Windsor, Chrysler Hall, North 401 Sunset, Windsor, ON, Canada, N9B 3P4

    Christopher W. Tindale

Authors
  1. Christopher W. Tindale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher W. Tindale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tindale, C.W. Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise. Argumentation 20, 447–466 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9026-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9026-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation