Response to my commentator
Manfred Kraus2013
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
AI
AI
The commentary on a dialogical analysis of rhetorical texts argues that its foundations are flawed, particularly in its interpretation of pragma-dialectical theory. This paper responds to the criticism by clarifying the dialectical nature of rhetorical argumentation, while acknowledging some conflation of 'dialectical' and 'dialogical' terms. Ultimately, it maintains that the analysis presented does not require retraction despite some criticisms.
Related papers
The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument
Argumentation, 1998
The paper's thesis is that dialogue is not an adequate model for all types of argument. The position of Walton is taken as the contrary view. The paper provides a set of descriptions of dialogues in which arguments feature in the order of the increasing complexity of the argument presentation at each turn of the dialogue, and argues that when arguments of great complexity are traded, the exchanges between arguers are turns of a dialogue only in an extended or metaphorical sense. It argues that many of the properties of engaged back-and-forth exchanges of paradigmatic argument dialogues are not found in ‘solo’ arguments, and that at least some of the norms appropriate to the former type of argument, such as some of the pragma-dialectical rules of van Eemeren and Grootendorst's model, do not apply to the latter.
Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context In Walton's Pragmatic Theory
Informal Logic, 2008
The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit argumentative strategies. Showing the different dialectical proposals Walton advanced in several studies on argumentation as a development of a dialogical system, it has proved possible to highlight the fundamental aspects of his theory in a comprehensive model of communication and interaction. Keywords: Relevance, Dialogue Shifts, Communication Context, Implicit Commitments, Walton’s Dialectical Theory
Henry Johnstone, Jr.'s Still-Unacknowledged Contributions to Contemporary Argumentation Theory
2001
Abstract Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.
Frans H. van Eemeren: Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation
Argumentation, 2011
Dialogues in Argumentation
2016
Deep disagreement is a concept that has been widely mentioned but is undertheorized in the argumentation literature. This essay discusses what deep disagreement is, argues that it has become more frequent and serious, and then maps out a range of argument patterns that may be signs of its appearance: polemic, condemnation, paradigm shift, and interdependence. Finally, the essay suggests that rhetorical moves may be needed to alter the frame of reference and transcend the disagreement. Most of the examples come from the United States, because I know it best, but I believe that my claims are applicable generally.
Arguing or reasoning? Argumentation in rhetorical context
2013
If dialogue is a necessary condition for argument, argumentation in oratory becomes questionable, since rhetoric is not a dialogically structured activity. If special norms apply to the 'solo' performances of rhetoric, the orator's activity may be more appropriately described as reasoning than as arguing. By analyzing in what respect rhetorical texts can be interpreted as dialogue-based and subject to criteria of Informal Logic, the virtues of rhetorical argumentation in contrast to logic and dialectic emerge.
Comments on 'Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics'
2000
When faced with a topic like 'dialectic and rhetoric,'the student of rhetoric is, I suppose, by trained incapacity disposed to view it as 'dialectic versus rhetoric'and to take up arms in defense of her much-maligned Dame. The pleasures and payoffs of zealous advocacy, after all, have not waned even through 2,500 years. Unfortunately, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with my adversary's proposal for union, or at least detente, between the dialectical and rhetorical inquiries into argumentation.
Related topics
Related papers
H. van Eemeren y Rob Grootendorst. A_Systematic_Theory_of_Argumentation__The_pragma_dialectical_approach__2003_.pdf
The pragma-dialectical approach In A Systematic Theory of Argumentation, two of the leading figures in argumentation theory, Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a "critical discussion" serves as a theoretical tool for analyzing, evaluating, and producing argumentative discourse. In this approach, pragmatic and dialectical insights are combined by conceiving a critical discussion as a methodological exchange of speech acts between two parties.
Comments on `Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework
Argumentation, 2000
'Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework' raises three questions. First, what is the relation between the methods of winning a dispute and the methods of securing agreement studied in pragma-dialectics? What is the relation between rhetoric and dialectic? This is a question to which van Eemeren and Houtlosser offer a clear answer, but I will invite them to reconsider in light of my other two questions. Second, how do the methods of verbal manipulation in general, whether competitive or cooperative, relate to the methods used to arrive at something greater than agreement, such as truth or the accurate representation of nature? This second question could be posed as the relation between dialectic and rhetoric and the methods of science. Third, discourse often has purposes that have nothing to do with resolving disputes, and which therefore do not reach the threshold at which dialectic, for van Eemeren and Houtlosser, begins. Often people speak merely to be heard, to express themselves and create their identities within a community. Just as I wonder about the relation between both rhetoric and dialectic and science, I wonder about their relation to purely expressive discourse, a connection perhaps hinted at in Aristotle's discussion of epideictic rhetoric, but surely needing more analysis.
Commentary on: Charlotte Jørgensen's" Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic: The triad de-campartmentalized
J. Anthony Blair: Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair. Introduction by Christopher W. Tindale
Argumentation, 2015
The book presents a selection of paper authored by J. Anthony Blair, one of the most important personalities in the field of argumentation studies, ''a frontline worker or pioneer'', (Christopher Tindale), and, I'd like to add, a stylist. The book cover 30 years of research, from 1981 to 2011. Twenty papers are grouped under four thematic sections, ''Critical Thinking'', ''Informal Logic'', ''Argumentation Theory'', and ''Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric''. Each section is preceded by an ''Introduction'' giving its main orientation, and followed by a ''Postscript'', presenting the 2012 author's afterthoughts; all that gives to the book a ''novelistic impulse'' prompting the reader to further readings and new theoretical developments. This review focuses on three key questions, that is, (1) the evolution of Blair theoretical vision, from the ''Relevance-Acceptability-Sufficiency'' criteria, which have defined what may be called the ''standard Informal Logic theory'' (2) the integration of the reasoning, schemes and the dialogue with the Pragmadialectical theory; (3) the dialogue with rhetoric about the plurality of norms applicable to authentic argumentative discourse. Keywords Argumentation Á Informal logic Á Reasoning Á Rhetoric Á Pragmadialectic Á Dialogue The book presents a selection of paper authored by J. Anthony Blair, one of the most important personalities in the field of argumentation studies, ''a frontline worker or pioneer'', as Christopher Tindale aptly puts it in his illuminating introduction, and,
The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument
In this book Douglas Walton proposes a new and practical approach to argument analysis based on his theory that different standards for argument must apply in the case of different types of dialogue.By refining and extending the existing formal classifications of dialogue, Walton shows that each dialogue type, be it inquiry, negotiation, or critical discussion, has its own set of goals. He demonstrates that an argument can best be evaluated in terms of its contribution, positive or negative, to the goals of the particular dialogue it is meant to further. In this way he illustrates how argument can be brought into the service of many types of dialogue, and thus has valuable uses that go well beyond the mere settling of disputes and differences.
E. Feteris, B. Garssen and F. Snoeck Henkemans (eds): Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics. In Honor of Frans H. van Eemeren
Argumentation, 2012
van Eemeren's Pondering on Problems of Argumentation
Informal Logic, 2010
Commentary on: Jacky Visser's "A formal account of complex argumentation in a critical discussion
2013
Underlying Assumptions of Examining Argumentation Rhetorically
Argumentation, 2019
Argumentation is the offspring of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Differences among them are matters more of degree than of kind, but each reflects basic underlying assumptions. This essay explicates five key assumptions of rhetorical approaches to argumentation: (1) audience assent is the ultimate measure of an argument's success or failure; (2) argumentation takes place within a context of uncertainty, both about the subject of the dispute and about the process for conducting the dispute; (3) arguers function as restrained partisans and accept risks that follow from such a status; (4) despite its seemingly adversarial nature, argumentation is fundamentally cooperative, pursuing the shared goal of making the best decision; and (5) argumentation is grounded in the situational context of particular cases.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.