Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Political Deliberation
Edited by Marcin Lewiński and Dima Mohammed
[Benjamins Current Topics 76] 2015
► pp. 11–31

Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation

| ILIAS, Emeritus Professor University of Amsterdam
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.
Keywords: (extended) pragma-dialectics, (political) deliberation, argumentative characterization, communicative activity type, confrontational strategic maneuver(ing), institutional point, institutional precondition, strategic maneuvering
Published online: 10 July 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.76.01eem
References (45)
Aakhus, Mark. 2003. “Neither naïve nor critical reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse and the design of argumentation.” Argumentation 17 (3): 265–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Andone, Corina. 2010. Confrontational strategic maneuvers in a political interview. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 1991. Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. (1st ed 1984). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
Cosoreci Mazilu, Simona. 2010. Dissociation and persuasive definitions as argumentative strategies in ethical argumentation on abortion. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1956a. Preface to democratic theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1956b. “Hierarchy, democracy and bargaining in politics and economics.” In Political behaviour, ed. by Heinz Eulau, Samuel Eldersveld, and Morris Janowitz. Glencou: Free Press.Google Scholar
. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Lane. 1964. “The cost of realism: Contemporary restatements of democracy.” Western Political Quarterly XVII: 37–46.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2002. “Democracy and argumentation.” Controversia 1 (1): 69–84.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. 2010. “In varietate concordia — United in diversity: European parliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type.” Controversia 7 (1): 19–37.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa/London: Alabama University Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Peter Houtlosser. 1999. “William the Silent’s argumentative discourse.” In Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles A. Willard, 168–171. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
. 2000. “The rhetoric of William the Silent’s Apologie. A dialectical perspective.” In Proceedings of the First Tokyo Conference on Argumentation, ed. by T. Suzuki, Y. Yano, and T. Kato, 37–40. Tokyo: Japan Debate Association.Google Scholar
(eds). 2002. Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance.” In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, and Peter Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis. The critical study of language. London: Longman Group Limited.Google Scholar
Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. “Quid pro nobis. Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis.” In Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 131–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara. 2009. Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1994. “Three normative models of democracy.” Constellations 1 (1): 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Between facts and norms (William Rehg, trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996. “Political science and the three new institutionalisms.” Political Studies 44: 936–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hample, Dale. 2003. “Arguing skill.” In Handbook of communication and social interaction skills, ed. by John O. Greene, and Brant R. Burleson, 439–477. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
. 2007. “The arguers.” Informal Logic 27 (2): 163–178.Google Scholar
Ihnen Jory, Constanza. 2012. Analysing and evaluating pragmatic argumentation in lawmaking debates: Institutional constraints on pragmatic argumentation in the British parliament. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally, and Scott Jacobs. 2006. “Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango.” In Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. by Peter Houtlosser, and M. Agnès van Rees, 121–133. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Mark Aakhus. 2002. “How to resolve a conflict: Two models of dispute resolution.” In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. by Frans H. van Eemeren, 29–44. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity types and language.” In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 66–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin. 2010. Internet political discussion forums as an argumentative activity type. A pragma-dialectical analysis of online forms of strategic manoeuvring with critical reactions. Amsterdam: Sic SatGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Everyday talk in the deliberative system.” In Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement, ed. by Stephen Macedo, 211–242. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mohammed, Dima. 2009. “The honourable gentleman should make up his mind”. Strategic manoeuvring with accusations of inconsistency in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Muraru, Daniela. 2010. Mediation and diplomatic discourse: The strategic use of dissociation and definitions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bucharest.Google Scholar
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation (Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published in 1958)Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Andrea Rocci. 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, Sara. 2009. Ars topica: The classical technique of constructing arguments from Aristotle to Cicero. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1962. Democratic theory. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1943/1950. Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Allen and Unwin/New York: Harper Bros.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1995. The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Tonnard, Yvon M. 2011. Getting an issue on the table. A pragma-dialectical study of presentational choices in confrontational strategic maneuvering in Dutch parliamentary debate. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 2001. Return to reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wagemans, Jean 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]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas N., and Erik C.W. Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, Joseph W. 1990. “Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic.” In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in the honor of Wayne Brockriede, ed. by Robert Trapp, and Janice Schuetz, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Egres, Dorottya
2021. Strategic maneuvering in extended polylogues. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 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.