Abstract
Can a figure of rhetoric be an argument? Can it be an element of argumentation? In order to provide an answer, let us begin by defining what is understood by “figure of rhetoric”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Bibliography
Angenot, Marc (1982): La parole pamphlétaire, Payot.
Aristotle, Rhetoric, Budé, 3 vols.
Dispaux, Gilbert (1984): La logique et le quotidien, Minuit.
Fontanier, Pierre (1968): Les figures du discours, Flammarion.
Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1974): Le comique du discours, University of Brussels.
Oléron, Pierre (1983): L’argumentation, «Que sais-je?», PUF, 1983.
Perelman, Ch. and Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1976): Traité de l’argumentation (The New Rhetoric), University of Brussels and Vrin.
Quintillian, Institution oratoire, Budé, 7 volumes.
Reboul, Olivier (1984): La rhétorique, «Que sais-je?», PUF.
Reboul, Olivier (1984): Qu’est-ce qu’apprendre?, PUF.
Ricoeur, Paul (1975): The Rule of Metaphor, Seuil.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Reboul, O. (1989). The Figure and the Argument. In: Meyer, M. (eds) From Metaphysics to Rhetoric. Synthese Library, vol 202. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2593-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2593-9_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7672-2
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2593-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive