Advertisement

Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance

  • Frans H. van EemerenEmail author
  • Peter Houtlosser
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 27)

Abstract

“Quirites!” This is the infamous one-word speech by which Julius Caesar won his rebellious legions over to fight the republican army in North Africa, in 46 BC. After having fought a great number of battles under Caesar’s command, the soldiers had refused to follow him again. Caesar’s use of the word quirites as form of address had a devastating effect. According to the classical scholar (Leeman in Argumentation illuminated. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 12–22, 1992), ‘quirites’ was the dignified word a Roman magistrate used to address an assembly. Caesar’s use of this word to his soldiers made it clear to them that they had not only lost their privilege of being addressed as commilitones, or ‘comrades,’ but were even no longer entitled to a Roman general’s normal form of address for his soldiers: milites. “We are milites!” they reportedly shouted when they all volunteered to follow Caesar once more into battle. Ceasar’s use of the ‘neutral’ quirites as a qualification is an excellent illustration of how the communicative and interactional meaning of argumentative language use can only be grasped if the discourse is first put in a functional perspective in which its social context and the commitments assumed by the participants are duly taken into account.

Keywords

Resolution Process Argumentative Discourse Strategic Maneuvering Presentational Device Argumentative Move 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agricola, R. (1479/1967). De inventione libri tres (selected chapters by J. R. McNally, Trans.). Speech monographs (Vol. 34, pp. 393–422).Google Scholar
  2. Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft (3rd ed.). Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  3. Anscombre, J.-C. (1994). La nature des topoï. In J.-C. Anscombre (Ed.), La théorie des topoï (pp. 49–84). Paris: Editions Kimé.Google Scholar
  4. Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in Language]. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
  5. Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoit, W. L., & Lindsey, J. J. (1987). Argument strategies: Antidote to Tylenol’s poisoned Image. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 136–146.Google Scholar
  7. Cicero (1942). De oratore (E. W. Sutton & H. Rackham, Eds.). London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  8. Dascal, M., & Gross, A. G. (1999) Strategic Maneuvering. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric. (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. Freeley, A. J. (1993). Argumentation and debate: Critical thinking for reasoned decision making (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  10. Gaonkar, D. P. (1990). Rhetoric and its double: Reflections on the rhetorical turn in the human sciences. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 341–366). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Groarke, L. (2002). Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument (Ch. 9). In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (University of Amsterdam, June 21–24, 1994, Vol. II, pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  14. Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1984). Logical propaedeutic: Pre-school of reasonable discourse (Logische Propädeutik: Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens H. Robinson, Trans.). Mannheim: Hochschultaschenbücher-Verlag, 1967.) Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  15. Kennedy, G. A. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kienpointner, M. (1995). Rhetoric. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: Manual (pp. 453–461). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leeman, A. D. (1992). Rhetoric versus argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 12–22). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  18. Mack, P. (1993). Renaissance argument: Valla and Agricola in the traditions of rhetoric and dialectic. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meerhoff, C. G. (1988). Agricola et Ramus: dialectique et rhétorique. In F. Akkerman & A. J. Vanderjagt (Eds.), Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius 1444-1485 (pp. 270–280). Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy, J. J., & Katula, R. A. (Eds.). (1994). A synoptic history of classical rhetoric. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press (Originally published 1972).Google Scholar
  21. Natanson, M. (1955). The limits of rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 41, 133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation H. Robinson, Trans.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958). Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, H. (2001). Pragmatisme: een open vraag (Il pragmatismo: una questione aperta Dutch, Trans.). Roma-Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli Spa, 1992). Amsterdam: Boom.Google Scholar
  24. Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique (Introduction to rhetoric. Theory and practice). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  25. Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shapin, S. (1996). The scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Simons, H. W. (1990). The rhetoric of inquiry as an intellectual movement. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry (pp. 1–31). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1995). ‘But’ as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions. In Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology, 84, 281–294.Google Scholar
  29. Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and acting: An invitation to philosophy. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  30. Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F. H. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Text, 10, 37–44.Google Scholar
  32. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 2, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1997). Argumentation. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process.Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. (pp. 208–229)London: SageGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1998). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In J. F. Klumpp (Ed.), Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques. Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. Alta, Utah, August 1997 (pp. 51–56). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  37. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse. Discourse Studies, 1, 479–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000a). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14, 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2000b). Managing disagreement: rhetorical analysis within a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocay, 37, 150–157.Google Scholar
  40. van Eemeren, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (2001). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering. Paper presented at the 12th NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation. To be published in the proceedings of the conference.Google Scholar
  41. van Eemeren, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). ‘Clear thinking in troubled times’: An integrated pragma-dialectical analysis. To be published in Informal Logic 22.Google Scholar
  42. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
  43. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Blair, J. A., Johnson, R. H., Krabbe, E. C. W., et al. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. van Eemeren, F. H., Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (Un)reasonableness of the argumentum ad hominem. Language and Social Psychology, 19(4), 416–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ware, B. L., & Linkugel, W. A. (1973). They spoke in defense of themselves: On the generic criticism of apologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weaver, R. (1953). The Phaedrus and the nature of rhetoric. In R. Weaver (Ed.), The ethics of rhetoric (pp. 3–26). Chicago: Henry Regnery.Google Scholar
  48. Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  49. Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers, 1972–1982. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations