Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.’

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

Notes

  1. Proof that does not appear to speak for itself can, of course, be presented as argumentation.

  2. An early European pioneer of the modern dialectical treatment of argumentation is Naess (1966).

  3. Hamblin inspired Woods and Walton (1989) to start developing their formal treatment of the fallacies. In North America, modern dialectical approaches to argumentation influenced by Hamblin are propsed by Finocchiaro (1980, 2005) and Johnson (2000).

  4. According to Simons (1990), “most neutrally, perhaps, rhetoric is the study and practice of persuasion” (p. 5).

  5. At best, rhetoricians could be said to carry out “preliminary theoretical work” for empirical persuasion research. In practice, however, they are as a rule dealing with individual speech events rather than being out to develop general theory. Besides, the notions of ‘effectiveness’ and ‘persuasiveness’ are not necessarily synonymous (van Eemeren 2010, p. 39, 66).

  6. However, in line with the classical view that a vir bonus is required for acting rhetorically optimally and the modern ideal of ‘civic discourse,’ there is a tendency among rhetoricians to add an ethical (and sometimes downright moralistic) dimension to their rhetorical considerations. As Leff (2002) points out, there is no general agreement among rhetoricians about which normative standard needs to be taken into account in addition to effectiveness: Quintilian adds an ethical standard, the humanists in the Renaissance require eloquence, speech act theorists refer to the requirements of the discursive situation, and others require demonstrating a deep kind of rationality (p. 54). Often rhetorical normativity is summarized in the rather vague notion of ‘appropriateness.’

  7. The New Rhetoric has been criticized for its ill-defined basic concepts, problematic universal audience and lack of mutually exclusive categories in its taxonomy of argument schemes (van Eemeren et al. 2013, Chap. 5). According to Fahnestock (1999), the redefinition of the rhetorical figures in the New Rhetoric is problematic “to the extent that it links the figures to an untraceable psychological experience” (p. 36).

  8. My speculative explanation is that this is partly due to a combination of immigrants’ tendency to hold on to the familiar tradition and democratic ideology stimulating every citizen to be capable of taking part in public debate.

  9. Modern American rhetorical argumentation research also includes conceptual studies, such as Schiappa’s (2002) and Zarefsky’s (2006) examinations of the rhetorical uses of ‘stipulative’ and ‘persuasive’ definitions.

  10. His dialectical insights Aristotle developed in Topica and Sophisticis elenchis, his rhetorical insights in Rhetorica.

  11. According to Slomkowski (1999) and Hasper and Krabbe (to be published), Aristotle’s dialectic is, despite Aristotle’s claim to originality, based on the art of discussion described in Plato’s dialogues.

  12. According to Wagemans (2009), Aristotle’s dialectical discussion is organized in the same way as the ‘dialectics’ of the Socratic elenchus and the critical component of the method of hypotheticizing (pp. 113–131).

  13. For the organization of a dialectical discussion, see Slomkowski (1999, pp. 14–42) and Wagner and Rapp (2004, pp. 17–18).

  14. The tasks of the orator are inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and actio. The components of the oration include, apart from an occasional digressio, the exordium, narratio, argumentatio (including both confirmatio and refutatio), and the peroratio. See Lausberg (1998).

  15. In a Dutch monograph, Braet (2007) compares Aristotle’s Rhetorica, the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, and the rhetoric of Hermagoras of Temnos from the perspective of argumentation theory. He characterizes Aristotle’s rhetoric as richest in theory—the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum is more practical, the rhetoric of Hermagoras more educational.

  16. Aristotle observes that other rhetoricians resort in the first place to pathos. See Rapp (2002, I, p. 364).

  17. It therefore does not come as a surprise that Wagemans (2009) concludes in a Dutch study comparing pragma-dialectics with the antique dialectical and rhetorical tradition that the pragma-dialectical view of the aim of a critical discussion is implicitly related to a dialectical discussion in the Aristotelian sense and that the views concerning the organization and normative regulation of the discussion are inspired by it (pp. 190–191).

  18. Kock (2007) criticizes modern argumentation theorists who aspire to make good use of insights from rhetoric in their theorizing for not realizing that the domain of rhetoric is that of action. He ignores that they distinguish in an Aristotelian vein between argumentative defences of different types of standpoints, often prototypically related to specific communicative domains. According to Kock, rhetorical argumentation is rooted in deliberation about choices between alternative courses of action, so that the terms rhetoric and deliberation are in effect “co-extensive.” He criticizes, among others, Tindale (2004) for not recognizing “that there is a particular domain of issues that is natural or particular to rhetorical argumentation” and objects to the use of the same theory for dealing with the uses of argumentation in different communicative domains, without acknowledging that some of these argumentation theorists specify their general theory, in a similar way as Aristotle did, according to the communicative activity types concerned (van Eemeren 2010).

  19. The theory of stasis has had a great impact on the doctrine of the ‘stock issues’ that has shaped the American tradition of academic debate. Among the argumentation theorists using the concept of the stock issues in argumentation analysis is Goodwin (2002). In Kauffeld’s (2002) rhetorical approach, the stock issues are one of the starting points of the theorizing about argumentative discourse.

  20. Because rhetoric deals also with enthymematic arguments, it is theoretically in a sense part of dialectic, and because it relies on premises accepted by the audience, in turn, dialectic is theoretically in a sense a special case of rhetoric.

  21. In De oratore, Cicero (2001) makes Crassus launch a forceful attack on dialectic.

  22. The Münchhausen trilemma is that in justifying standpoints definitively one either falls into circularity, or in an infinite regress of justifications, or has to break off the justification process at an arbitrary point.

  23. In pragma-dialectics, argumentation is studied from a communicative perspective, inspired by pragmatic insights from speech act theory and discourse analysis, combined with a critical perspective, inspired by dialectical insights from critical rationalism and logical dialogue theory (van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1984, 1992, 2004).

  24. Rule 1 of the code of conduct, the Freedom Rule, is designed to ensure that standpoints and doubt regarding standpoints can be freely advanced. Rule 2, the Obligation to Defend Rule, ensures that standpoints that are put forward and called into question are indeed defended. Rule 3, the Standpoint Rule, prevents antagonists to deviate from what is actually claimed. Rule 4, the Relevance Rule, requires standpoints to be defended by logos, not merely by ethos or pathos. Rule 5, the Unexpressed Premise Rule, ensures that implicit elements in argumentation are treated seriously. Rule 6, the Starting Point Rule, ensures that the starting points agreed upon are used properly. Rule 7, the Validity Rule, requires checking in cases where this is due whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Rule 8, the Argument Scheme Rule, excludes improper uses of argument schemes. Rule 9, the Concluding Rule, ensures that the result of the discussion is ascertained in a correct manner. Rule 10, the Language Use Rule, is aimed at preventing misunderstandings resulting from non-transparent, vague or equivocal formulations or inaccurate, sloppy or biased interpretations.

  25. Pragma-dialecticians are interested in effectiveness consisting of intended acceptance of commitment based on understanding and rational consideration (van Eemeren 2010, pp. 37–38).

  26. Dialectical insights could in principle also be integrated in a rhetorical framework, as Tindale (2004) aspires to do, but for methodological reasons the integration of rhetorical insights in a dialectical framework is in my view to be preferred. The theoretical framework provided by dialectic is more general and more systematic than the rhetorical one because it abstracts further from the particularities of actual argumentative discourse.

  27. Taking the four stages of a critical discussion as the point of departure, their empirical counterparts in a particular communicative activity type can be identified that are to be depicted in an argumentative characterization of the activity type: the initial situation (confrontation stage), the starting points (opening stage), the argumentative means and criticisms (argumentation stage), and the outcome (concluding stage).

  28. Leff (2002) emphasizes the strong impression this origin of rhetoric has left “on almost all future developments” (p. 56). According to Kennedy (1994), Aristotelian rhetoric is “a body of knowledge, derived from observation and experience” (p. 57).

  29. Perhaps more importantly, the integration of rhetorical insights in a dialectical theoretical framework offers argumentation theorists new opportunities for carrying out empirical research: qualitative research to describe the preconditions for strategic manoeuvring in the various kinds of communicative types and experimental research to describe, from a firmer theoretical basis than current persuasion research, the interdepency between the effectiveness of argumentative moves and their reasonableness.

References

  • 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].

  • Aristotle. 1928. [Sophisticis elenchis] Sophistical refutations. Ed. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Aristotle. 1960. [Topica] Topics (Trans: Forster, E.S.]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  • Aristotle, [Rhetorica]. Kennedy G.A. 1991. Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (pp. 23–282). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Braet, A. 2007. De redelijkheid van de klassieke retorica: De bijdrage van klassieke retorici aan de argumentatietheorie. Leiden: Leiden University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero. 2001. On the ideal orator (tran: May, J.M. and Wisse, J.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Conley, T.M. 1990. Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser (eds.). 2002c. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fahnestock, J. 1999. Rhetorical figures in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. 1980. Galileo and the art of reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. 2005. Arguments about arguments. Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foss, S.K., K.A. Foss, and R. Trapp. 1985. Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Green, L.D. 1990. Aristotelian rhetoric, dialectic, and the traditions of antistrophos. Rhetorica 8(1): 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C.L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasper, P.S., & E.C.W. Krabbe (to be published). Aristoteles—Over drogredenen: Sofistische weerleggingen (Trans: introduction and annotation by Peter Sjoerd Hasper and Erik C.W. Krabbe). Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.

  • 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 

  • Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Kennedy, G. 1994. A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Lorenzen, P., and K. Lorenz. 1978. Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Naess, A. 1966. Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D.J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (1st ed. 1990.).

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Rapp, C. (2002). Aristoteles—Rhetoric. Trans. and explained by Christof Rapp. 2 volumes. Berlin: Akademie.

  • Reboul, O. 1991. Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Rees, M.A. 2009. Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simons, H.W. (ed.). 1990. The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slomkowski, P. 1999. Aristotle’s topics. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. 2001. Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S.E. 2003. The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original publication 1958.).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Wagner, T., & Rapp, C. 2004. Aristoteles—Topik. Trans. and annotated byTim Wagner and Christof Rapp. Stuttgart: Reclam.

  • Walton, D.N., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J., and D.N. Walton. 1989. Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 1990. Lincoln Douglas and slavery. In the crucible of public debate. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 2005. President Johnson’s war on poverty: Rhetoric and history. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. (Original publication 1986.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarefsky, D. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20(4): 399–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ILIAS and University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren

Authors
  1. Frans H. van Eemeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans H. van Eemeren.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Eemeren, F.H. In What Sense Do Modern Argumentation Theories Relate to Aristotle? The Case of Pragma-Dialectics. Argumentation 27, 49–70 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9277-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-012-9277-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation