Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The empirical relevance of Perelman's New Rhetoric

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Perelman's work has been very influential in various disciplines, among them philosophy, rhetoric and law. Especially the typology of argumentative schemes which he developed together with L. Olbrechts-Tyteca has been considered as an excellent classification of arguments in natural language. There are, however, some weaknesses of this typology which make its application to empirical research quite difficult, namely, the lack of explicitness and the absence of clear criteria of demarcation. Still, the typology is highly relevant for empirical research, if these weaknesses are removed. This is illustrated with an example: the scheme called ‘the division of the whole into its parts’ by Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca is described explicitly and then applied to the analysis of a sample of everyday arguments (mostly taken from newspapers).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abaelardus, P.: 1956,Dialectica (ed. by L. M. De Rijk), Van Gorcum, Assen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boethius: 1860,De Differentiis Topicis, in J. P. Migne (ed.), Patrologiae Cursus Completus. Series Latina 64, Paris, pp. 1173–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero: 1976,De Oratore (ed. by H. Merklin), Reclam, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicero: 1983,Topica (ed. by H. G. Zekl), Meiner, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copi, I. M.: 1972,Introduction to Logic, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel, U.: 1988,Deutsche Grammatik, Groos, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geckeler, H.: 1979,Antonymie und Wortart, in E. Bülow/P. Schmitter (eds.),Integrale Linguistik, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 455–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grize, J. B.: 1982,De la logique à l'argumentation, Droz, Genève.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, M. A. K.: 1985,An Introduction to Functional Grammar, Arnold, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacques, F.: 1979, “Logique ou rhétorique de l'argumentation?’,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 127–128, 47–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R.: 1986,Racism and Recruitment: Managers, Organizations and Equal Opportunity in the Labour Market, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, H. W.: 1978,Validity and Rhetoric in Philosophical Argument, The Dialogue Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, H.: 1976,Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, Wadsworth, Belmont.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalinowski, G.: 1972,Einführung in die Normenlogik, Athenäum, Frankfurt/M.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. J.: 1972,Semantic Theory, Harper & Row, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, D.: 1988,The Art of Reasoning, Norton & Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1982, “Probleme einer Argumenttypologie”,Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8, 175–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1983,Argumentationsanalyse, Verlag des Sprachwissenschaftlichen Instituts, Innsbruck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1987, “Towards a Typology of Argumentative Schemes”, in F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and Ch. A. Willard (eds.),Argumentation: Across the Line of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 275–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1991, “Rhetoric and Argumentation: Relativism and Beyond”,Philosophy and Rhetoric 24.1., 43–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1992a,Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern, Frommann - Holzboog, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M.: 1992b, How to Classify Arguments, in F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and Ch. A. Willard (eds.),Argumentation Illuminated, SICSAT, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopperschmidt, J.: 1989,Methodik der Argumentationsanalyse, Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühner, R. and C. Stegmann: 1962,Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, Satzlehre, Vol. II, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, G.: 1981,Semantics, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.: 1977,Semantics, Vol. I, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier-Leibnitz, H.: 1984,Erste Versuche zur Anwendung der “Neuen Rhetorik” auf die Bewertung von Diskussionen über Naturwissenschaft und Technik, Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miéville, D.: 1989, “Lorsque la logique rencontre l'argumentation”,Argumentation 3.1., 45–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1970a,Le champ de l'argumentation, Presses Universitaires, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1970b, “Reflexions sur la classification”, in 1970a, pp. 353–358.

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1979a, “La philosophie du pluralisme et la Nouvelle Rhétorique’,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 127–128, 5–17.

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1979b,Juristische Logik als Argumentationslehre, Alber: Freiburg/Müchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1979c,Logik und Argumentation, Athenäum, Königstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch.: 1980:Das Reich der Rhetorik, Beck, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, Ch. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1983,Traité de l'argumentation, La Nouvelle Rhétorique, Éditions de l'université de Bruxelles, Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirie, M.: 1985:The Book of the Fallacy, Routledge & Kegan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quintilianus: 1953,Institutio Oratoria (ed. and transl. by H. E. Butler), Heinemann, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik: 1985,A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, M. H.: 1984,Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking, Harcort Brace Jovanovich, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schellens, P. J.: 1985,Redelijke Argumenten, Utrecht.

  • Shi, Xu: 1991, “Contradistictive Argumentation and its Use in Conversation”, in F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, A. J. Blair and Ch.A. Willard (eds.),Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Amsterdam, June 19–22, 1990 (696–708).

  • Tarello, G.: 1979, “La Nouvelle Rhétorique et le droit. L'argument ‘A cohaerentia’ et l'analyse de la pratique des organes judiciaires”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie 127–128, 294–302.

  • Toulmin, S.: 1958,The Uses of Argument, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S., R. Rieke and A. Janik: 1984,An Introduction to Reasoning, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A.: 1987,Discourse and the Reproduction of Racism, Centre for Race and Ethnic Studies, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H. and Kruiger, T.: 1987, “Identifying Argumentation Schemes”, in F. H. Van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard (eds.),Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 70–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R. and Kruiger, T.: 1987,Handbook of Argumentation Theory, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N.: 1982,Topical Relevance in Argumentation, Benjamins, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N.: 1989,Informal Logic, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. and Woods, J.: 1982,Argument: the Logic of the Fallacies, McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster'sThird New International Dictionary, 1976, Merriam, Springfield/Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillig, W.: 1982,Bewerten: Sprechakttypen der bewertenden Rede, Niemeyer, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyskind, H.: 1979, “The New Rhetoric and Formalism”, inRevue Internationale de Philosophie 127–128, 18–32.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Classical Philology, University of Innsbruck, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Manfred Kienpointner

Authors
  1. Manfred Kienpointner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kienpointner, M. The empirical relevance of Perelman's New Rhetoric. Argumentation 7, 419–437 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711059

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00711059

Key words

Search

Navigation