{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xls","n_sheets":1,"sheets":["report2"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":1,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900","formulas":"cached_only"}

{"sheet":"report2","index":0,"n_rows":26,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":26,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,2,0,3],[0,4,0,5],[1,2,1,3],[1,4,1,5],[2,2,2,3],[2,4,2,5],[3,2,3,3],[4,2,4,3],[9,2,9,3],[10,2,10,3],[11,2,11,3],[12,2,12,3],[13,2,13,3],[15,2,15,3],[16,2,16,3],[20,2,20,3]],"flags":["formulas_cached_only"]}
[null,"1.","Record Nr.",null,"UNINA9910956274103321"]
[null,null,"Autore",null,"Eemeren F. H. van (Frans Hendrik), <1946->"]
[null,null,"Titolo",null,"Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse : extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation / / Frans H. van Eemeren"]
[null,null,"Pubbl/distr/stampa",null,"Amsterdam ; ; Philadelphia, : John Benjamins, 2010"]
[null,null,"ISBN",null,"9786612558535"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9781282558533"]
[{"$nulls":4},"1282558536"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9789027288271"]
[{"$nulls":4},"9027288275"]
[null,null,"Edizione",null,"[1st ed.]"]
[null,null,"Descrizione fisica",null,"1 online resource (321 p.)"]
[null,null,"Collana",null,"Argumentation in context ; ; 2"]
[null,null,"Disciplina",null,"808/.042"]
[null,null,"Soggetti",null,"Persuasion (Rhetoric)"]
[{"$nulls":4},"Discourse analysis"]
[null,null,"Lingua di pubblicazione",null,"Inglese"]
[null,null,"Formato",null,"Materiale a stampa"]
[null,null,null,"Livello bibliografico","Monografia"]
[null,null,null,"Note generali","Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph"]
[null,null,null,"Nota di bibliografia","Includes bibliographical references and index."]
[null,null,"Nota di contenuto",null,"Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Dedication page -- Table of contents -- Preface -- 1. Analyzing argumentative discourse -- 1.1 The scope of reason in argumentative discourse -- 1.2 Normative pragmatics as a theoretical perspective -- 1.3 Reconstructing the process of resolving a difference of opinion -- 1.4 Constructing an analytic overview of argumentative discourse -- 1.5 Accounting for an analytic overview -- 1.6 Getting a better grip on argumentative reality -- 1.7 An extended pragma-dialectical theory -- 2. Strategic maneuvering between effectiveness and reasonableness -- 2.1 Defining argumentation theoretically -- 2.2 Maintaining reasonableness in argumentative discourse -- 2.3 Aiming for effectiveness in argumentative discourse -- 2.4 The notion of strategic maneuvering as an analytic instrument -- 2.5 Strategic maneuvering in the various stages of the resolution process -- 2.6 Coordinated strategic maneuvering and discussion strategies -- 2.7 Accounting for strategic maneuvering in the analysis -- 3. Dialectical and rhetorical perspectives on argumentative discourse -- 3.1 Diverging meta-theoretical outlooks on dialectic and rhetoric -- 3.2 Reasonable argumentative discourse in classical dialectical approaches -- 3.3 Reasonable argumentative discourse in modern dialectical approaches -- 3.4 Effective argumentative discourse in "]
[{"$nulls":4},"classical rhetorical approaches -- 3.5 Effective argumentative discourse in modern rhetorical approaches -- 3.6 Different views on the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric -- 3.7 Strategic maneuvering as a concept bridging dialectic and rhetoric -- 4. Three inseparable aspects of strategic maneuvering -- 4.1 The strategic maneuvering triangle -- 4.2 Topical selection in strategic maneuvering."]
[{"$nulls":4},"4.3 Theoretical contributions to the analysis of topical selection -- 4.4 Adaptation to audience demand in strategic maneuvering -- 4.5 Theoretical contributions to the analysis of adjusting to audience demand -- 4.6 Presentational choices in strategic maneuvering -- 4.7 Theoretical contributions to the analysis of presentational choices -- 5. Strategic maneuvering in conventionalized communicative practices -- 5.1 Argumentative discourse in different domains of communicative activity -- 5.2 The theoretical treatment of argumentation in context -- 5.3 Distinguishing between communicative activity types -- 5.4 Communicative activity types and the model of a critical discussion -- 5.5 Characterizing the argumentative features of communicative activity types -- 5.6 Institutional preconditions for strategic maneuvering -- 5.7 A case of confrontational strategic maneuvering in the political domain -- 6. Determining the strategic function of argumentative moves -- 6.1 Four factors serving as parameters -- 6.2 A case in point: Shell's advertorial about its role in Nigeria -- 6.3 The analytic overview as a source for results aspired to -- 6.4 Dialectical profiles as a source for available routes -- 6.5 Communicative activity types as a source for institutional constraints -- 6.6 The argumentative situation as a source for commitment sets -- 6.7 Analyzing an argumentative move for its strategic function -- 7. Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering -- 7.1 Hamblin's criticism of the logical standard treatment -- 7.2 The need for a comprehensive approach to the fallacies -- 7.3 Fallacies as violations of rules for critical discussion -- 7.4 Strategic maneuvering and the deceptiveness of fallacies -- 7.5 Context-independent criteria for judging fallaciousness -- 7.6 Context-dependent criteria for judging fallaciousness."]
[{"$nulls":4},"7.7 Evaluating the soundness of strategic maneuvers: An example -- 8. Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof -- 8.1 The burden of proof as a procedural concept -- 8.2 Meeting the burden of proof by means of argumentation -- 8.3 The order of defense in a mixed difference of opinion -- 8.4 A pragmatic rationale for deciding on the order of defense -- 8.5 The pragmatic status quo and the order of defense -- 8.6 Stage-bound maneuvering with the burden of proof -- 8.7 A case of managing the burden of proof in advertisements -- 9. Strategic maneuvering in response to presumed inconsistency or fallaciousness -- 9.1 Logical and pragmatic inconsistencies in a party's avowed commitments -- 9.2 Tu quoque fallacies as derailments of pointing out inconsistencies -- 9.3 An accusation of inconsistency case from Dutch politics -- 9.4 The practical impact of the occurrence of fallacies -- 9.5 Repairing derailments that do not cancel reasonableness -- 9.6 Two diverging proposals for dealing with perceived fallacies -- 9.7 Re-railing repairable derailments of strategic maneuvering -- 10. Setting up an agenda for further research -- 10.1 Recapitulating the basics of the extended pragma-dialectical theory -- 10.2 Maintaining coherence and vitality in the research program -- 10.3 Reviewing dialectical and rhetorical perspectives philosophically -- 10.4 Defining types of strategic maneuvering and soundness conditions theoretically -- 10.5 Describing modes of strategic maneuvering and their effects empirically -- 10.6 Reconstructing strategic maneuvers and broader strategies analytically -- 10.7 "]
[{"$nulls":4},"Characterizing communicative activity types praxeologically -- References -- Index of names -- Index of terms -- The series Argumentation in Context."]
[null,null,null,"Sommario/riassunto","In Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Frans H. van Eemeren brings together the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of argumentation by introducing the concept of strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering refers to the arguer's continual efforts to reconcile aiming for effectiveness with being reasonable. It takes place in all stages of argumentative discourse and manifests itself simultaneously in the choices that are made from the topical potential available at a particular stage, in adaptation to audience demand, and in the use of specific presentational devices. Strategic maneuvering derails when in the specific context in which the discourse takes place a rule for critical discussion has been violated, so that a fallacy has been committed. Van Eemeren makes clear that extending the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation by taking account of strategic maneuvering leads to a richer and more precise method for analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse."]