The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed by van
Eemeren and Grootendorst enables the analyst of argumentative discourse to make
a normative reconstruction that results in an analytic overview of all elements in the
discourse that are pertinent to a critical evaluation, but according to van Eemeren
and Houtlosser this reconstruction can be further refined and better accounted for
if the theory is extended by including a rhetorical dimension. Developing such an
extended theory, which will also enable a more realistic treatment of the fallacies in the
evaluation of argumentative discourse, was the aim of van Eemeren and Houtlosser’s
research project Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse.−Although the
dialectical and the rhetorical approach to argumentative discourse were closely
connected in Antiquity, and have remained connected for a long time, in modern
times they have grown apart. Nowadays there is a paradigmatic division between
dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which causes a conceptual and communicative
gap between their protagonists. According to van Eemeren and Houtlosser this gap
hinders the desired development of a full-fledged theory of argumentation and is, in
fact, unnecessary. In their view, the gap can be bridged by introducing the theoretical
concept of “strategic manoeuvring”, which makes it possible to integrate rhetorical
insight into a dialectical framework of analysis. Strategic manoeuvring refers to
the efforts arguers make to reconcile their aiming for rhetorical effectiveness with
maintaining dialectical standards of reasonableness. In his presentation, van Eemeren
will discuss the concept of strategic manoeuvring in more detail. In the process, he will explain the main ingredients of the new framework of analysis and evaluation
that was developed the Strategic Manoeuvring project