Chapter 8. Strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in political deliberation

2017 ◽  
pp. 123-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Political Deliberation

Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation

2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
The Political ◽  
Strategic Maneuvering ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Communicative Practices ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Political Deliberation ◽  
Communicative Activity

In this essay, first the pragma-dialectical theory of strategic maneuvering is explained. Then the focus is on the conventionalization of communicative practices in communicative activity types and the institutional constraints it imposes on strategic maneuvering. Thus, an adequate background is created for discussing, on the basis of several recent projects, pragma-dialectical research of argumentative discourse in the political domain.

scholarly journals Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ton Van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Stylistic Analysis ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Argumentative Strategy ◽  
Argumentative Strategies ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Important Basis

The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is often carried out according to an argumentative strategy. Language users make an effort to present their strategic manoeuvres in a specific way and the analysis of the stylistic choices in actual argumentative discourse is the most important basis for identification and analysis of argumentative strategies. In this article, it is shown what requirements must be satisfied by a systematic stylistic analysis of argumentative discourse, and the results of such an analysis are illustrated by means of a case study.

scholarly journals The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 161-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. van Eemeren ◽  
Peter Houtlosser
Keyword(s):  
Research Programme ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Normative Pragmatics

In the study of argumentation there is a sharp and ideological separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which needs to be remedied. The authors show how the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation can be instrumental in bridging the gap. By adopting a research programme that involves engaging in ‘normative pragmatics’, not only the critical normative and the empirical descriptive dimensions of the study of argumentation can be brought together, but also the dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives. In the research programme, which includes philosophical, theoretical, analytical, empirical and practical components, dialectical and rhetorical perspectives are articulated in each component. The authors make clear that the two perspectives can be reconciled with the help of the notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring’. Strategic manoeuvring, which is inherent in argumentative discourse, is aimed at reconciling the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical aims.

scholarly journals Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse

1999 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 479-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANS H. VAN EEMEREN ◽  
PETER HOUTLOSSER
Keyword(s):  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring

scholarly journals Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-128
Author(s):  
Ton van Haaften
Keyword(s):  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Strategic Manoeuvring ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Dialectical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentative Activity

Abstract Strategic manoeuvring in plenary debates in the Second Chamber of Dutch ParliamentThe (extended) pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is carried out within specific argumentative activity types. In this paper it is argued that pragma-dialectics offers a fruitful approach to study political debate. The approach and its added value are discussed and illustrated on the basis of a specific type of political debate in a specific argumentative activity type: the plenary debate in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.

The Priority of Public Reasons and Religious Forms of Life in Constitutional Democracies

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
Cristina Lafont
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
The Public ◽  
Difficult Question ◽  
Political Deliberation ◽  
Forms Of Life ◽  
The Public Sphere ◽  
The Right ◽  
Mutual Accountability

In this essay I address the difficult question of how citizens with conflicting religious and secular views can fulfill the democratic obligation of justifying the imposition of coercive policies to others with reasons that they can also accept. After discussing the difficulties of proposals that either exclude religious beliefs from public deliberation or include them without any restrictions, I argue instead for a policy of mutual accountability that imposes the same deliberative rights and obligations on all democratic citizens. The main advantage of this proposal is that it recognizes the right of all democratic citizens to adopt their own cognitive stance (whether religious or secular) in political deliberation in the public sphere without giving up on the democratic obligation to provide reasons acceptable to everyone to justify coercive policies with which all citizens must comply.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document