Review of van Eemeren (): Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-258
Author(s):  
Karen Tracy
Keyword(s):  
Strategic Maneuvering ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Dialectical Theory

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.

Strategic maneuvering with presentational choices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-166
Author(s):  
Anca Gâţă
Keyword(s):  
Corporate Social Responsibility ◽  
Social Responsibility ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Strategic Maneuvering ◽  
Activity Type ◽  
Csr Reporting ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Communicative Activity Type ◽  
Corporate Social ◽  
Communicative Activity

Abstract In the framework of the extended pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting is approached in this study as a particular communicative activity type, which can be reconstructed as part of a critical discussion. CSR reports excerpts are viewed in the analysis as parts of a virtual critical discussion in which a company acts as a protagonist maneuvering strategically to defend the standpoint according to which the business is operated ethically, and to convince the audience about what is mentioned in the standpoint. The reconstructed standpoint of a CSR report, We are doing business responsibly, may be regarded as stereotypical, since it corresponds to the institutional point of this regulated type of communicative activity. In the first part of the study, a brief overview is given of the CSR reporting activity, then the concept of strategic maneuvering is presented, under its three aspects (topical potential, audience demand, and presentational techniques), as well as the notion of communicative activity type, with a highlight on the role of the (macro-)context and of institutional preconditions in analytical studies on argumentation. The analysis in the latter part of the study concerns presentational techniques used by the protagonist in the confrontation and in the argumentation stages in CSR reporting, in order to reconcile rhetorical and dialectical aims by maneuvering strategically. The coordinatively and the subordinatively compound structure of argumentation, the symptomatic argument scheme, as well as reformulations of the standpoint, use of emotionally endowed words, concentration of the arguments in the form of nominal sentences acting as headings are among the most important presentational devices constitutive of argumentative moves aimed at convincing the audience that the company acts ethically, but also at promoting a positive image of its business responsibility, which appears to be the ground for winning the discussion.

scholarly journals Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 322-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frans H. Van Eemeren
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Argumentation Theory ◽  
Complex Relationship ◽  
Abstract Model ◽  
Argumentative Discourse ◽  
Crucial Question ◽  
Analytical Instruments ◽  
Dialectical Theory ◽  
Activity Types ◽  
Communicative Activity

To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start answering the crucial question about the typical characteristics of their discourse asked by interested lawyers, politicians, academics and other practitioners of argumentation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document