Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rhetoric in a Dialectical Framework: Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 27))

Abstract

The subject we are dealing with in this paper—fallacies in argumentative exchanges—is a crucial topic in the study of argumentation. In our opinion, the way in which the fallacies are treated can even be seen as the “acid test” for any normative theory of argumentation.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aristotle. Rhetoric (W. D. Ross (Ed.) (1924), Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. Sophistical refutations (W. D. Ross (Ed.) (1928), Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle. Topics. (W. D. Ross (Ed.) (1928), Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. M., & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From axiom to dialogue: A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. (Reprinted from Newport News, Va: Vale Press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, H. V., & Pinto, R. C. (1995). Fallacies. Classical and contemporary readings. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, D. (2006). The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem fallacy. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 109–119). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. (1995). Fallacies and heuristics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Analysis and Evaluation. Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation (Vol. II, pp. 257–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienpointner, M. (2006). How to present fallacious messages persuasively: The case of the “Nigeria spam letters.” In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 161–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, K., & Ulrich, W. (1980). The nature of argument. New York: Macmillan/Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. (2006). Pragma-dialectics and persuasion effect research. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 235–243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., Garssen, B. J., & Meuffels, B. (2007). The intersubjective validity of the rules for critical discussion. Experimental research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (1998). Rhetorical rationales for dialectical moves: Justifying pragma-dialectical reconstructions. In J. F. Klump (Ed.), Argument in a time of change. Definitions, frameworks, and critiques (pp. 51–56). Proceedings of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, Utah, August 1997. Annandale VA: National Communication Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: A delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131–159). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, Ch. A. Willard & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of The Fifth Conference Of The International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 289–292). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F.H., & Houtlosser, P. (2004). More about fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The case of tu quoque. In H. V. Hansen, Ch. W. Tindale, J. A. Blair, R. H. Johnson & R. C. Pinto (Eds.), Argumentation and its applications. Informal Logic @ 25. CD ROM ISBN 0-9683461-2-X-3-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.), The Uses of Argument. Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University (75–84), May 18–21, 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlossser, P. (2001). Managing disagreement: Rhetorical analysis within a dialectical framework. Argumentation and Advocacy, 37(3), 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1987). Informal fallacies. Towards a theory of argument criticisms. Pragmatics & Beyond Companion Series 4. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1992). Types of dialogue, dialectical shifts and fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch A Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 133–147). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1998). The new dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. N. (1999). The appeal to ignorance, or argumentum ad ignorantiam. Argumentation, 13, 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods, J., & Walton, D. N. (1989). Fallacies. Selected Papers 1972–1982. Berlin/Dordrecht: De Gruyter/Foris.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, Faculty of Humanities, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser

Authors
  1. Frans H. van Eemeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Houtlosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Frans H. van Eemeren .

Appendix: Pragma-Dialectical Rules for Critical Discussion and Fallacies

Appendix: Pragma-Dialectical Rules for Critical Discussion and Fallacies

  1. 1.

    Freedom rule

    Parties must not prevent each other from putting forward standpoints or casting doubt on standpoints.

  1. 2.

    Burden-of-proof rule

    A party who puts forward a standpoint is obliged to defend it if asked to do so.

  1. 3.

    Standpoint rule

    A party’s attack on a standpoint must relate to the standpoint that has indeed been advanced by the other party.

  1. 4.

    Relevance rule

    A party may defend his or her standpoint only by advancing argumentation related to that standpoint.

  1. 5.

    Unexpressed premise rule

    A party may not falsely present something as a premise that has been left unexpressed by the other party or deny a premise that he or she has left implicit.

  1. 6.

    Starting point rule

    No party may falsely present a premise as an accepted starting point, or deny a premise representing an accepted starting point.

  1. 7.

    Argument scheme rule

    A standpoint may not be regarded as conclusively defended if the defense does not take place by means of an appropriate argument scheme that is correctly applied.

  1. 8.

    Validity rule

    The reasoning in the argumentation must be logically valid or must be capable of being made valid by making explicit one or more unexpressed premises.

  1. 9.

    Closure rule

    A failed defense of a standpoint must result in the protagonist retracting the standpoint, and a successful defense of a standpoint must result in the antagonist retracting his or her doubts.

  1. 10.

    Usage rule

    Parties must not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly ambiguous, and they must interpret the formulations of the other party as carefully and accurately as possible.

From: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst and A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (2002). Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Eemeren, F.H., Houtlosser, P. (2015). Rhetoric in a Dialectical Framework: Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Manoeuvring. In: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation