Advertisement

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

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

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

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations