Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework

Gábor Forgács 1
  • 1 Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Abstract

The article analyzes strategic manoeuvring within the pragmadialectical framework with respect to the selection of starting points in the opening stage to frame the arguments. The Terri Schiavo case is presented, which can provide interesting insights concerning this issue. I would like to show that resolution of the difference of opinion requires the resolution of a subordinate difference of opinion concerning how to label her medical state, and why discussants were not able to resolve this subordinate difference of opinion. After, the conflict that arises between critical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness is examined and how strategic manoeuvring aims to resolve this conflict. In the final part of the paper I argue that the problems raised can be dealt with within the framework of pragma-dialectics.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adams, D. M. (2005). Knowing when Disagreements are Deep. Informal Logic, 25(1), 65-77.

  • Corner, A. & Hahn, U. (2010). Message Framing, Normative Advocacy and Per- suasive Success. Argumentation, 24(2), 153-163.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (2002). Argu- mentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum Associates.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumen- tation: The Pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Eemeren F. H. van (2009). Strategic Manoeuvring Between Rhetorical Effectiveness and Dialectical Reasonableness. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16 (29), 69-91.

  • Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse - Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam- Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

  • Fogelin, R. J. (1985). The Logic of Deep Disagreements. Informal Logic, 7(1), 1-8.

  • Grady, D. (2005). The Hard Facts Behind A Heartbreaking Case. New York Times, June 19, J Section 4. Retrieved 29 November, 2013, from /http://www.nyti mes.com/2005/06/19/weekinreview/19word.html?pagewanted=all& r=1&/.

  • Krabbe, E.C.W. (2007). On How to Get Beyond the Opening Stage. Argumenta- tion, 21(3), 233-242.

  • Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search