This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Whately is, by the way, one of the sources for Perelman in his reformulation of the conviction-persuasion distinction (see Perelman 1989: 66).
As an example, when trying to show that conviction and persuasion are equally important, depending on the element we decide to emphasize, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca wrote: “For those who are worried about result, to persuade is more important than to convince, conviction being the first step leading to action […]. By contrast, for those who are worried about the rational character of adherence, to convince is more than to persuade” (Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1970: 35). Thanks to O’Keefe’s distinction, we can now understand that in this quote persuasion is understood and praised as an end, while conviction is seen and praised as a (rational) means.
It is not within the scope of this introduction to explain the meaning Ducrot gives to “topos”.
Note that from a traditional (non linguistic) argumentative point of view, there is no anti-orientation, but a reason given (“it is good for you”) in order to support a standpoint (go walking in spite of the distance).
References
Angenot, Marc. 2008. Dialogue de sourds: Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits (Fayard).
Biro, John, and Harvey Siegel. 1992. Normativiy, argumentation and an epistemic theory of fallacies. In Argumentation illuminated: Selected papers from the 1990 international conference on argumentation, ed. Frans van Eemeren, et al., 85–103. Dordrecht: Foris.
Ducrot, Ostwald. 1992. Argumentation et persuasion. In Énonciation et parti-pris: Actes du Colloque d’Anvers, février 1990, ed. Walter De Mulder, Franc Schuerewegen, and Liliane Tasmowski, 143–158. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi Editions.
Ducrot, Ostwald. 2004. Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique In L’argumentation aujourd’hui: Positions théoriques en confrontation, ed. Marianne Doury and Sophie Moirand, 17–34. Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Hamblin, Charles L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen and Co.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lyotard, Jean-François. 1983. Le Différend. Paris: Minuit.
Perelman, Chaïm. 1989. Rhétoriques. Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Buxelles.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1970. Traité de l’argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Brussels: Editions de l’Institut de Sociologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Pieter Houtlosser. 2002. And always the twain shall meet In Dialectic and rhetoric: The Warf and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. Frans H. van Eemeren and Pieter Houtlosser, 3–11. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1998. The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants in the symposium from which this issue is drawn, all the more since our limited budget didn’t make it possible to refund their travelling and accommodation expenses. We also thank the CRAL (Centre de recherches sur les Arts et le Langage) for supporting the symposium, as well as for funding the translations of the papers originally written in French. We are also very grateful to the anonymous referees who kindly accepted to review all the papers. Thanks to them, authors have been able to improve their papers. The papers originally written in French, except one, have been translated by Christopher Renna. We would like to thank him for his patience and his commitment. Last but not least, we are also grateful to Argumentation, and in particular to Frans van Eemeren for suggesting that we submit this special issue to this journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nettel, A.L., Roque, G. Introduction. Argumentation 26, 1–17 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9238-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9238-3