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 Anton Leeman (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.2
Earlier versions of this paper were published in Discourse Studies (1999), Argumentation (2000a), and Informal Logic (2002). A different version will appear in the Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Rhetoric, held in Donostia/San Sebastian in November 2001.
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.
References
Agricola, R. (1479/1967). De inventione libri tres. A translation of selected chapters by J.R. McNally. Speech Monographs 34, 393–422.
Albeit, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft. 3rd Ed. Tübingen: Mohr.
Anscombre, J.-C. (1994). La nature des topoï. In J.-C. Anscombre (Ed.), La théorie des topol (49–84). Paris: Editions Kimé.
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’Argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in Language]. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.
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.
Benoit, W.L., & Lindsey, J.J. (1987). Argument Strategies: Antidote to Tylenol’s Poisoned Image. Journal of the American Forensic Association 23, 136–146.
Cicero, (1942). De oratore. Edited by Sutton, E.W., & Rackham, H. London: Heinemann.
Eemeren, F.H. van (1990). The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. Text 10, 37–44.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & 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.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1988). Rationale for a Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Argumentation 2, 271–291.
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst, R., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Blair, J.A., Johnson, R.H., Krabbe, E.C.W., Plantin, Chr., Walton, D.N., Willard, CA., Woods, J., & Zarefsky, D. (1996). Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & 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 (51–56). Annandale, VA : National Communication Association.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (1999). Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1, 479–497.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2000a). Rhetorical Analysis within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework. Argumentation 14, 293–305.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2000b).Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis within a Dialectical Framework. Argumentation and Advocay 37, 150–157.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & 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.
Eemeren, F.H. van, & Houtlosser, P. (2002). ‘Clear Thinking in Troubled Times’: An Integrated Pragma-Dialectical Analysis. To be published in Informal Logic 22.
Eemeren, F.H. van, Meuffels, B., & Verburg, M. (2000). The (Un)Reasonableness of the Argumentum ad Hominem. Language and Social Psychology 19, 4, 416–435.
Freeley, A.J. (1993). Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making. 8th ed. Belmont, CA: .
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.
Groarke, L. (2002). Toward a Pragma-Dialectics of Visual Argument. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Amsterdam/Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press, Ch. 9.
Hamblin, C.L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted at Newport News: Vale Press.
Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies as 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), Volume II (pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1984). Logical Propaedeutic: Pre-School of Reasonable Discourse. (transl. by Hoke Robinson of Logische Propädeutik: Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens). Mannheim: Hochschultaschenbücher-Verlag, 1967.) Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Kennedy, G.A. (1994). A New History of Classical Rhetoric. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kienpointner, M. (1995). Rhetoric. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (453–461). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Leeman, A.D. (1992). Rhetoric versus Argumentation Theory. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair, & C.A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (12–22). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Mack, P. (1993). Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic. Leiden: Brill.
Meerhoff, C.G. (1988). Agricola et Ramus: dialectique et rhétorique. In F. Akkerman, & A.J. Vanderjagt (Eds.), Rodolphus Agricola Phrisius 1444–1485 (270–280). Leiden: Brill.
Murphy, J.J., & Katula, R.A. (Eds.) (1994). A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric. Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press (Originally published 1972).
Natanson, M. (1955). The Limits of Rhetoric. Quarterly Journal of Speech 41, 133–139.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (Translation of La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1958). Notre Dame/London: University of Notre Dame Press.
Putnam, H. (2001). Pragmatisme: een open vraag (Dutch Transl. Of Il pragmatismo: una questione aperta, Roma-Bari: Gius, Laterza & Figli Spa, 1992). Amsterdam: Boom.
Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique [Introduction to rhetoric. Theory and practice]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Rescher, N. (1977). Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Shapin, S. (1996). The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Snoeck Henkemans, F. (1995) ‘But’ as an Indicator of Counter-Arguments and Concessions. In Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology 84, 281–294.
Toulmin, S.E. (1976). Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy. New York: Macmillan.
Toulmin, S.E. (2001). Return to Reason. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Walton, D.N., & Krabbe, E.C.W. (1995). Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
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.
Weaver, R. (1953). The Phaedrus and the Nature of Rhetoric. In: R. Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (pp. 3–26). Chicago: Henry Regnery.
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.
Woods, J. & Walton, D.N. (1989). Fallacies: Selected Papers, 1972–1982. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris/Mouton de Gruyter.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic Maneuvering. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric. Argumentation Library, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9948-1_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6057-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9948-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive