Argumentation

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 49–70 | Cite as

In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics

Article

Abstract

According to van Eemeren, argumentation theory is a hybrid discipline, because it requires a multidisciplinary, if not interdisciplinary approach, combining descriptive and normative insights. He points out that modern argumentation theorists give substance to the discipline by relying either on a dialectical perspective, concentrating on the reasonableness of argumentation, or on a rhetorical perspective, concentrating on its effectiveness. Both the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective are interpreted in ways related to how they were viewed by Aristotle, but in modern argumentation theory the relationship between the two, captured in Aristotle’s term antistrophos, is lost. According to van Eemeren, this relationship, which he considers crucial to a full-fledged argumentation theory, has been recovered in extended pragma-dialectics with the help of the theoretical notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring.’

Keywords

Antistrophos Aristotle Dialectic Effectiveness Pragma-dialectics Reasonableness Rhetoric 

References

  1. Aristoteles, Opera [in the orginal Greek] ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri. Oxford, 1837. Revised Oxford transl. [Topica, vol. 1, 100a ff; De Sophisticis elenchis, vol 1, 164a ff; Ars Rhetorica, vol. 11, 1354a ff].Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1928. [Sophisticis elenchis] Sophistical refutations. Ed. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1960. [Topica] Topics (Trans: Forster, E.S.]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle, [Rhetorica]. Kennedy G.A. 1991. Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (pp. 23–282). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braet, A. 2007. De redelijkheid van de klassieke retorica: De bijdrage van klassieke retorici aan de argumentatietheorie. Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cicero. 2001. On the ideal orator (tran: May, J.M. and Wisse, J.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Conley, T.M. 1990. Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  10. van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen, E.C.W. Krabbe, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, B. Verheij, and J.H.M. Wagemans. 2013. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002a. And always the twain shall meet. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 3–11. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  15. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002b. Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  16. van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser (eds.). 2002c. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Fahnestock, J. 1999. Rhetorical figures in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Finocchiaro, M. 1980. Galileo and the art of reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finocchiaro, M. 2005. Arguments about arguments. Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Foss, S.K., K.A. Foss, and R. Trapp. 1985. Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
  21. Goodwin, J. 2002. Designing issues. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 81–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  22. Green, L.D. 1990. Aristotelian rhetoric, dialectic, and the traditions of antistrophos. Rhetorica 8(1): 5–27.Google Scholar
  23. Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  24. Hasper, P.S., & E.C.W. Krabbe (to be published). AristotelesOver drogredenen: Sofistische weerleggingen (Trans: introduction and annotation by Peter Sjoerd Hasper and Erik C.W. Krabbe). Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
  25. Hohmann, H. 2002. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 41–52. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  26. Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Kauffeld, F.J. 2002. Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (p. 97–118), ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  28. Kennedy, G.A. 1991. Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Newly translated with introduction, notes, and appendixes by G. A. Kennedy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kennedy, G. 1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kock, C. 2007. The domain of rhetorical argumentation. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the international society of the study of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard, and B. Garssen, 785–788. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  31. Lausberg, H. 1998. Handbook of literary rhetoric: A foundation for literary study. Ed. D.E. Orton and R.D. Anderson. Trans: Bliss, M.T., Jansen, A. and Orton, D.E. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
  32. Leff, M. 2002. The relation between dialectic and rhetoric in a classical and a modern perspective. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 53–64. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  33. Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
  34. Lunsford, A.A., K.H. Wilson, and R.A. Eberly. 2009. Introduction: Rhetorics and roadmaps. In The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies, ed. A.A. Lunsford, K.H. Wilson, and R.A. Eberly, xi–xxix. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Naess, A. 1966. Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. O’Keefe, D.J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (1st ed. 1990.).Google Scholar
  37. Perelman, C. 1970. The New Rhetoric: A theory of practical reasoning. The great ideas today. Part 3: The contemporary status of a great idea, 273–312. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.Google Scholar
  38. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original French publication 1958.).Google Scholar
  39. Rapp, C. (2002). AristotelesRhetoric. Trans. and explained by Christof Rapp. 2 volumes. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
  40. Reboul, O. 1991. Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  41. van Rees, M.A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  42. Schiappa, E. 2002. Evaluating argumentative discourse from a rhetorical perspective: Defining ‘person’ and ‘human life’ in constitutional disputes over abortion. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and P. Houtlosser, 65–80. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  43. Simons, H.W. (ed.). 1990. The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Slomkowski, P. 1999. Aristotle’s topics. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
  45. Sprute, J. 1994. Aristotle and the legitimacy of rhetoric. In Aristotle’s rhetoric: Philosophical essays, ed. D.J. Furly, and A. Nehamas, 117–128. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Swearingen, C.J., and E. Schiappa. 2009. Historical studies in rhetoric: Revisionist methods and new directions. In The Sage handbook of rhetorical studies, ed. A.A. Lunsford, K.H. Wilson, and R.A. Eberly, 1–12. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Toulmin, S.E. 2001. Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Toulmin, S.E. 2003. The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original publication 1958.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wagemans, J.H.M. 2009. Redelijkheid en overredingskracht van argumentatie: Een historisch-filosofische studie over de combinatie van het dialectische en het retorische perspectief op argumentatie in de pragma-dialectische argumentatietheorie. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  51. Wagner, T., & Rapp, C. 2004. AristotelesTopik. Trans. and annotated byTim Wagner and Christof Rapp. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  53. Woods, J., and D.N. Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  54. Zarefsky, D. 1990. Lincoln Douglas and slavery. In the crucible of public debate. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Zarefsky, D. 2005. President Johnson’s war on poverty: Rhetoric and history. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. (Original publication 1986.).Google Scholar
  56. Zarefsky, D. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20(4): 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ILIAS and University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations