Strategic manoeuvring between rhetorical effectiveness and dialectical reasonableness

Abstract

The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst enables the analyst of argumentative discourse to make a normative reconstruction that results in an analytic overview of all elements in the discourse that are pertinent to a critical evaluation, but according to van Eemeren and Houtlosser this reconstruction can be further refined and better accounted for if the theory is extended by including a rhetorical dimension. Developing such an extended theory, which will also enable a more realistic treatment of the fallacies in the evaluation of argumentative discourse, was the aim of van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s research project Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse.−Although the dialectical and the rhetorical approach to argumentative discourse were closely connected in Antiquity, and have remained connected for a long time, in modern times they have grown apart. Nowadays there is a paradigmatic division between dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which causes a conceptual and communicative gap between their protagonists. According to van Eemeren and Houtlosser this gap hinders the desired development of a full-fledged theory of argumentation and is, in fact, unnecessary. In their view, the gap can be bridged by introducing the theoretical concept of “strategic manoeuvring”, which makes it possible to integrate rhetorical insight into a dialectical framework of analysis. Strategic manoeuvring refers to the efforts arguers make to reconcile their aiming for rhetorical effectiveness with maintaining dialectical standards of reasonableness. In his presentation, van Eemeren will discuss the concept of strategic manoeuvring in more detail. In the process, he will explain the main ingredients of the new framework of analysis and evaluation that was developed the Strategic Manoeuvring project