Choice Is Not True Or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation
Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Standard
Choice Is Not True Or False : The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation. / Kock, Christian Erik J.
In: Argumentation : an international journal on reasoning, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2009, p. 61-80.Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Choice Is Not True Or False
T2 - The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation
AU - Kock, Christian Erik J
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Leading contemporary argumentation theories such as those of Ralph Johnson, van Eemeren and Houtlosser, and Tindale, in their attempt to address rhetoric, tend to define rhetorical argumentation with reference to (a) the rhetoricalarguer’s goal (to persuade effectively), and (b) the means he employs to do so. However, a central strand in the rhetorical tradition itself, led by Aristotle, and arguably the dominant view, sees rhetorical argumentation as defined with reference to the domain of issues discussed. On that view, the domain of rhetorical argumentation is centered on choice of action in the civic sphere, and the distinctive nature of issues in this domain is considered crucial. Hence, argumentation theories such as those discussed, insofar as they do not see rhetoric as defined by its distinctive domain, apply an understanding of rhetoric that is historically inadequate. It is further suggested that theories adopting this understanding of rhetoric risk ignoring important distinctive features of argumentation about action.
AB - Leading contemporary argumentation theories such as those of Ralph Johnson, van Eemeren and Houtlosser, and Tindale, in their attempt to address rhetoric, tend to define rhetorical argumentation with reference to (a) the rhetoricalarguer’s goal (to persuade effectively), and (b) the means he employs to do so. However, a central strand in the rhetorical tradition itself, led by Aristotle, and arguably the dominant view, sees rhetorical argumentation as defined with reference to the domain of issues discussed. On that view, the domain of rhetorical argumentation is centered on choice of action in the civic sphere, and the distinctive nature of issues in this domain is considered crucial. Hence, argumentation theories such as those discussed, insofar as they do not see rhetoric as defined by its distinctive domain, apply an understanding of rhetoric that is historically inadequate. It is further suggested that theories adopting this understanding of rhetoric risk ignoring important distinctive features of argumentation about action.
KW - Faculty of Humanities
KW - Argumentation
KW - Rhetoric
KW - Aristotle
KW - Nicomachean ethics
KW - Eudemian ethics
KW - Deliberative
KW - Deliberation
KW - Choice
KW - Argumentation theory
KW - Ralph Johnson
KW - Frans van Eemeren
KW - Peter Houtlosser
KW - Christopher Tindale
KW - Domain of issues
KW - Rhetorical argumentation
U2 - 10.1007/s10503-008-9115-x
DO - 10.1007/s10503-008-9115-x
M3 - Journal article
VL - 23
SP - 61
EP - 80
JO - Argumentation
JF - Argumentation
SN - 0920-427X
IS - 1
ER -
ID: 10698672