Cover not available
Part of
Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peng Wu
[Argumentation in Context 12] 2017
► pp. 123–144

Chapter 8
Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation

Article outline
  • 1.Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse
  • 2. Conventionalization of communicative practices in communicative activity types
  • 3.Institutional constraints on strategic manoeuvring
  • 4.Pragma-dialectical research of argumentative discourse in the political domain
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.12.08van
References (45)
References
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction. Dispute mediators, impasse and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andone, C. (2010). Confrontational strategic maneuvers in a political interview. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bolman, L. G., & T. A. Deal (1991). Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. (1st ed. 1984). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Cosoreci Mazilu, S. Dissociation and persuasive definitions as argumentative strategies in ethical argumentation on abortion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest.
Dahl, R. A. (1956a). Preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(1956b). Hierarchy, democracy and bargaining in politics and economics. In H. Eulau, S. Eldersveld & M. Janowitz (Eds), Political behaviour. Glencou: Free Press.Google Scholar
(1971). Polyarchy. Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, L. (1964). The cost of realism. Contemporary restatements of democracy. Western Political Quarterly, XVII, 37–46.Google Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van (2002). Democracy and argumentation. Controversia 1(1), 69–84.Google Scholar
(2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, F. H. van, & Garssen, B. (2010). In varietate concordia – United in diversity. European parliamentary debate as argumentative activity type. Controversia 7(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1999). William the Silent’s argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 168–171). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
(2000b). The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie. A dialectical perspective. In T. Suzuki, Y. Yano & T. Kato (Eds.), Proceedings of the first Tokyo conference on argumentation (pp. 37–40). Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.Google Scholar
(Eds.) (2002). Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
(2002a). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, J. (2009). Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 131–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1994). Three normative models of democracy. Constellations, 1(1), 1–1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996). Between facts and norms (Trans., W. Rehg). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, P. A., & Taylor, R. C. R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political studies, 44, 936–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, D. (2003). Arguing skill. In J. O. Greene & B. R. Burleson (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp/ 439–477). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(2007). The arguers. Informal Logic, 27(2), 163–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ihnen, Jory, C. (2012). Analysing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in lawmaking debates. Institutional constraints on pragmatic argumentation in the British parliament. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (2006). Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics: A festchrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp.121–134). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jacobs, S., & Aakhus, M. (2002). How to resolve a conflict. Two models of dispute resolution. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp.29–44). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In S. Macedo (Ed.), Deliberative politics. Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 211–242). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohammed, D. (2009). “The honourable gentleman should make up his mind”. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister′s Question Time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Muraru, D. (2010). Mediation and diplomatic discourse. The strategic use of dissociation and definitions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.(Original work published in 1958)Google Scholar
Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2006). Towards a definition of communicative context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. Studies in Communication Sciences, 6(2), 155–180.Google Scholar
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1962). Democratic theory. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, J. A. (1943/1950). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: Allen and Unwin/New York, NY: Harper Bros.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tindale, C. W. (2004). Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Tonnard, Y. (2009). Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (2001). Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google 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 [Reasonableness and persuasiveness of argumentation. A historical-philosophical study on the combination of the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective on argumentation in the pragma-dialectical theory to argumentation]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic. Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1995). Commitment in dialogue. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
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, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Radulović, Milica
2024. Chapter 10. Vagueness and ambiguity of perlocutionary effects in Prime Minister’s Question time sessions. In Vagueness, Ambiguity, and All the Rest [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 347], ► pp. 234 ff. DOI logo
Svačinová, Iva
2022. Three forms of internal negotiation through the activity of private diary-writing. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11:2 ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Egres, Dorottya
2021. Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Olayinka Unuabonah, Foluke
2020. Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:2 ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.