Cover not available
Part of
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 11–36

Chapter 2
In what sense do modern argumentation theories relate to Aristotle?

The case of Pragma-Dialectics

Article outline
  • 1.Overview of the expose
  • 2.Argumentation theory as a hybrid discipline
  • 3. The dialectical and the rhetorical perspective
  • 4.Connections between modern argumentation theory and Aristotle
  • 5. Dealing with the relationship of dialectic and rhetoric
  • 6.The pragma-dialectical gambit
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.02van
References (56)
References
Aristoteles, Opera [in the orginal Greek] ex recensione Immanuelis Bekkeri. Oxford, 1837. Revised Oxford transl. [Topica, vol. 1, 100a ff; De Sophisticis elenchis, vol 1, 164a ff; Ars Rhetorica, vol. 11, 1354a ff]Google Scholar
Aristotle, [Sophisticis elenchis] Sophistical refutations. Ed. W. D. Ross (1928). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
, [Topica] Topics. Transl. E. S. Forster (1960). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
, [Rhetorica]. G. A. Kennedy (1991), Aristotle. On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (pp. 23–282). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braet, A. (2007). De redelijkheid van de klassieke retorica: De bijdrage van klassieke retorici aan de argumentatietheorie. Leiden: Leiden University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cicero (2001). On the ideal orator (transl. J. M. May & J. Wisse). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conley, T. M. (1990), Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B., & Wagemans, J. H. M. (2013). Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.Google Scholar
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. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & 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 (p. 3–11). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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 (p. 131–159). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds., 2002), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, M. (1980). Galileo and the art of reasoning. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005). Arguments about arguments. Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Trapp, R. (1985). Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Goodwin, J. (2002). Designing issues. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (p. 81–96). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, L. D. (1990). Aristotelian rhetoric, dialectic, and the traditions of antistrophos. Rhetorica, 8(1), 5–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Hasper, P. S. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (to be published). Aristoteles – Over drogredenen: Sofistische weerleggingen. Transl., introduction and annotation by Peter Sjoerd Hasper and Erik C. W. Krabbe. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.
Hohmann, H. (2002). In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 41–52). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, R. H. (2000). Manifest rationality. A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, F. J. (2002). Pivotal issues and norms in rhetorical theories of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (red.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 97–118). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Kennedy, G. (1994). A new history of classical rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
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
Lausberg, H. (1998). Handbook of literary rhetoric: A foundation for literary study. Ed. by D. E. Orton & R. D. Anderson. Transl. by M. T. Bliss, A. Jansen, & D. E. Orton. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorenzen, P., & Lorenz, K. (1978). Dialogische Logik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naess, A. (1966). Communication and argument. Elements of applied semantics. Oslo: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (1st ed. 1990.)Google Scholar
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
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
Rapp, C. (2002). Aristoteles – Rhetoric. Transl. and explained by Christof Rap p. 2 volumes. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Reboul, O. (1991). Introduction à la rhétorique: Théorie et pratique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Rees, M. A. van (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Dordrecht etc.: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simons, H. W. (Ed.) (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slomkowski, P. (1999). Aristotle’s Topics. Leiden/New York/Köln: Brill.Google Scholar
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
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
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(2003). The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original publication 1958.) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Wagner, T. & Rapp, C. (2004). Aristoteles – Topik. Transl. and annotated by Tim Wagner and Christof Rapp. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies: Selected papers 1972–1982. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Zarefsky, D. (1990). Lincoln Douglas and slavery. In the crucible of public debate. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2005). President Johnson’s war on poverty: Rhetoric and history. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. (Original publication 1986.)Google Scholar
(2006). Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation, 20(4), 399–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar