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 -