#7 32.3 Tindale review van Eemeren PubVer © Christopher W. Tindale. Informal Logic, Vol. 32, No. 3 (2012), pp. 364-372. Book
Review
 
 Strategic
Maneuvering
in
Argumentative

 Discourse:
Extending
the
Pragma­dialectical
 Theory
of
Argumentation

 by
Frans
H.
van
Eemeren
 
 Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
 John
Benjamins
Publishing
Com‐ pany,
2010.
Pp.
xii,
1‐308.

 Hardbound: ISBN 978 90 272 1119 4 – €95.00, US$143.00 e-Book: ISBN 978 90 272 8827 1 – €95.00, US$143.00 Review by CHRISTOPHER W. TINDALE After
 the
early
years
of
development
and
clarification,
 the
 pragma‐dialectical
theory
has
for
some
time
been
a
mainstay
 in
argumentation
studies.
Theorists
and
practitioners
alike
 are
familiar
with
its
principal
notions
and
terminology
and
 our
students
have
learned
to
assimilate
it
into
their
studies,
 comparing
it
with
other
theoretical
approaches
and
applying
 it
where
useful.
For
the
past
decade
and
a
half,
and
particu‐ larly
since
the
untimely
passing
of
one
of
the
theory’s
origi‐ nators—Rob
 Grootendorst—pragma‐dialectics
 has
 under‐ gone
a
major
revision
(or
in
terms
used
by
the
author
of
the
 book
under
review,
“extension”).
With
the
able
collaboration
 of
 Peter
 Houtlosser,
 the
 other
 originator—Frans
 van
 Eemeren—has
developed
the
theory
to
incorporate
impor‐ tant
 aspects
 of
 a
 rhetorical
 perspective
 under
 the
 title
 of
 “Strategic
 Maneuvering.”
 Perspectives
 (like
 the
 dialectical
 and
 the
 logical)
 allow
 “a
 particular
 way
 of
 interpreting
 a
 phenomenon”
 (p.
 51,
 n.
 1),
 and
 so
 the
 rhetorical
 brings
 a
 richer
 set
 of
 conceptual
 lenses
 to
 pragma‐dialectics.
 Since
 this
work
has
been
widely
published
in
many
venues
over
a
 number
of
years,
people
may
be
 forgiven
 for
 thinking
 the
 current
book
is
somewhat
surplus.
But
they
would
be
quite
 wrong
to
persist
in
such
thinking. 
 Strategic
Maneuvering
in
Argumentative
Discourse
is
in
 many
ways
 the
most
up
 to
date
and
accessible
account
of
 pragma‐dialectics,
both
 in
what
 is
now
called
 its
 standard
 form,
and
the
extended
theory.
The
book
brings
together
the
 core
of
van
Eemeren
and
Houtlosser’s
work,
providing
a
full
 exposition
of
the
associated
ideas
and,
most
importantly,
il‐ Review of Strategic Maneuvering 365 lustrating
their
integration
in
a
theory
that
is
still
in
transi‐ tion.

Since
the
argumentation
community
has
also
now
been
 deprived
of
 the
talents
of
Peter
Houtlosser,
 this
work
was
 completed
without
him.
But
it
stands
as
a
testament
to
what
 he
brought
to
the
field
and
it
seems
unlikely
the
book
would
 have
been
much
changed
had
Houtlosser
lived
to
co‐author
 it. 
 While
not
exactly
a
U‐turn,
the
extended
version
does
 amount
to
a
major
adjustment
to
pragma‐dialectics.
Readers
 will
be
familiar
with
the
way
rhetoric
was
marginalized
in
 the
standard
theory.
As
recently
as
2004,
van
Eemeren
and
 Grootendorst
had
reiterated
a
key
point
made
in
(1992)
be‐ tween
 reconstructions
 that
 were
 audience‐oriented,
 and
 aimed
 at
 effectiveness,
 and
 those
 that
 were
 resolution‐ oriented,
aiming
at
the
resolution
of
a
dispute
(van
Eemeren
 &
Grootendorst,
2004:
24;
1992:
7‐8).
And
there
had
been
a
 consistent
dismissal
of
rhetorical
staples
like
ethos
and
pa­ thos
in
favour
of
logos.
Now,
the
strategic
maneuvering
pro‐ ject
brings
rhetoric
 into
 the
dialectical
 fold,
quite
 literally.
 And
does
so
on
dialectic’s
own
terms.
Aristotle
had
spoken
 obscurely
of
rhetoric
being
an
antistrophos
to
dialectic.
Stra‐ tegic
maneuvering
judges
the
relationship
to
be
one
in
which
 rhetorical
insights
can
be
brought
selectively
into
a
dialecti‐ cal
framework
(p.
90). 
 The
 occasion
 for
 this
 rapprochement
 is
 the
 need
 to
 bridge
 a
 gap
 (as
 the
 above
 orientations
 suggest)
 between
 argumentation
that
is
reasonable
and
argumentation
that
is
 effective.
Arguers
do
not
only
want
to
resolve
differences
of
 agreement,
 they
want
also
to
do
so
 in
terms
that
promote
 outcomes
they
prefer.
Strategic
maneuvering
is
a
balancing
 act
 that
bridges
 the
gap.
 It
 “refers
 to
 the
continual
efforts
 made
in
all
moves
that
are
carried
out
in
argumentative
dis‐ course
to
keep
the
balance
between
reasonableness
and
ef‐ fectiveness”
(p.
40).
The
dialectical
ensures
reasonableness
 (as
seen
through
the
procedures
of
the
standard
theory
re‐ capitulated
 in
 Chapter1),
 while
 the
 rhetorical
 brings
 the
 audience‐oriented
concerns
of
effectiveness
from
the
earlier
 books
into
a
full
pragma‐dialectical
account. 
 Once
the
details
of
the
standard
theory
have
been
re‐ hearsed
and
the
justification
for
strategic
maneuvering
ex‐ plained
in
Chapter
2,
the
heart
of
the
account
is
laid
out
in
 Chapters
 3
 through
 6.
 For
 those
 already
 familiar
 with
 pragma‐dialectics
and
the
introduction
of
strategic
maneu‐ vering,
these
are
the
chapters
on
which
to
focus.
In
the
re‐ mainder
of
the
book,
van
Eemeren
shows
how
strategic
ma‐ Christopher W. Tindale 366 neuvering
enhances
the
pragma‐dialectical
approach
to
core
 concerns
 like
 fallacies
 (Chapters
 7
 and
 9)
 and
 burden
 of
 proof
(Chapter
8).
Chapter
10
indicates
the
research
agenda
 that
might
still
be
fulfilled,
as
well
as
expressing
an
openness
 to
other
approaches
to
argumentation. 
 Effectiveness
cannot
be
reduced
to
persuasiveness,
as
 other
 rhetorical
 accounts
 may
 have
 suggested.
 This
 is
 be‐ cause
persuasiveness
is
limited
to
those
parts
of
argumenta‐ tive
discourse
that
can
be
reconstructed
as
belonging
to
the
 argumentation
stage,
whereas
effectiveness
also
applies
 to
 the
confrontation,
opening,
and
concluding
stages.
At
each
 stage,
arguers
desire
an
outcome
that
is
optimal
for
them
(p.
 45).
So,
the
analysts
may
look
at
the
choices
arguers
make
at
 each
stage
and
provide
a
more
extensive
analysis
 that
de‐ termines
 when
 strategic
 maneuvering
 is
 acceptable
 and
 when
not.
 
 These
choices
are
elaborated
in
Chapter
4,
but
not
be‐ fore
the
van
Eemeren
provides
the
valuable
service
in
Chap‐ ter
3
of
traveling
back
through
the
dialectical
and
rhetorical
 traditions,
exploring
reasonable
argumentative
discourse
in
 the
classical
and
modern
accounts
of
dialectic,
and
effective
 argumentative
discourse
in
classical
and
modern
accounts
of
 rhetoric.
The
results
are
admittedly
uneven,
but
in
a
positive
 sense
that
allows
the
author
to
determine
how
he
will
re‐ solve
some
of
the
debates
that
persist
and
to
clarify
how
the
 dialectical
 and
 rhetorical
 perspectives
 operate
 in
 strategic
 maneuvering.
 
 In
Chapter
4
we
are
introduced
to
the
central
strategic
 maneuvering
triangle
of
topical
potential,
audience
demand,
 and
presentational
device.
These
are
effectively
three
types
 of
 choice
 made
 in
 maneuvering.
 There
 are,
 for
 example,
 many
options
available
 to
an
arguer
 in
making
her
or
his
 moves
at
various
stages
 in
a
discourse,
and
these
are
cap‐ tured
in
the
idea
of
“topical
potential.”
I
may
decide
that
my
 interests
are
best
served
by
adopting
analogical
reasoning,
 and
I
maneuver
well
if
I
employ
this
in
a
reasonable
fashion.
 Beyond
 this,
 I
 also
 need
 to
 consider
 the
 audience,
 since
 I
 want
an
effective
outcome.
Adjusting
the
presentation
of
is‐ sues
to
the
audience
at
the
confrontation
stage,
for
example,
 involves
adjusting
to
“audience
demand.”
Finally,
we
choose
 “presentational
 devices”
 that
 we
 judge
 strategically
 best,
 drawing
from
whatever
repertoire
of
such
devices
we
have
 available.
 
 Van
Eemeren
hastens
to
downplay
any
claims
to
origi‐ nality
here,
since
other
authors
have
captured
all
three
ideas
 Review of Strategic Maneuvering 367 (p.
101).
Thus,
there
is
an
eclecticism
to
the
project
that
un‐ derlines
the
selectiveness
of
 the
use
of
rhetorical
 features.
 But
insofar
as
each
of
the
triad
is
drawn
from
the
tradition,
a
 stand
is
taken
on
how
what
is
adopted
should
be
interpreted.
 In
 discussing
 topical
 potential,
 for
 example,
 van
 Eemeren
 notes
that
there
is
no
agreement
on
how
topoi
are
to
be
un‐ derstood.
But
he
makes
good
use
of
recent
scholars
like
Ru‐ binelli
(2009)
and
Braet
(2007)
in
exploring
the
state
of
the‐ ory
and
explaining
how
the
debate
is
ongoing
and
that
still
 further
understanding
of
topical
selection
is
in
the
future
(p.
 108). 
 Questions
 of
 audience
 demand
 require
 consideration
 of
who
 is
 the
 intended
audience
dealing
with
problems
of
 heterogeneity.
These
are
difficult
matters,
handled
here
as
 best
as
anyone
might
expect.
A
distinction
between
primary
 and
secondary
audiences
acknowledges
the
existence
of
by‐ standers
but
separates
them
from
those
who
are
intended.
 And
the
diversity
of
audience
makeup
encourages
an
arguer
 to
“take
refuge
in
multiple
argumentation”
(p.
110),
address‐ ing
different
arguments
to
different
segments
of
an
audience.
 If
strategic
maneuvering
aims
at
 the
whole
audience,
 then
 “all
views
and
preferences
of
the
audience
that
are
pertinent
 to
determining
the
starting
point
of
the
argumentative
dis‐ course
must
be
taken
into
account”
(p.
110).
This
itself
can
 be
a
difficult
demand
on
arguers,
and
we
may
need
to
look
 elsewhere
for
tools
to
assist
such
determinations.
Once
iden‐ tified,
 these
 starting
 points
 are
 commitments
 an
 audience
 can
be
held
to
at
 later
stages
of
an
exchange,
an
 idea
that
 echoes
the
concern
over
such
commitments
in
Robert
Bran‐ dom’s
pragmatism
(Brandom,
1994). 
 The
 discussion
 of
 presentational
 devices
 considers
 both
 formal
 and
 informal
 devices
 (p.
 121)
 and
 draws
 on
 theorists
as
diverse
as
Paul
Grice,
whose
Maxim
of
Manner
 can
be
used
to
achieve
certain
effects,
albeit
implicit
and
in‐ direct,
and
Jeanne
Fahnestock,
whose
extensive
work
on
fig‐ ures
associates
them
both
with
topoi
(as
general
lines
of
ar‐ gument)
 and
 even
 with
 certain
 forms
 of
 argument
 them‐ selves
(p.
125).
Choice
of
presentational
device
in
agreement
 with
 topical
choices
and
 those
 that
adjust
 to
audience
de‐ mand
reduces
to
the
“framing”
of
argumentative
moves
in
a
 communicatively
 and
 interactionally
 functional
 way”
 (p.
 119). 
 Although
not
all
communicative
activity
types
are
ar‐ gumentative,
 those
that
are
are
 important
to
strategic
ma‐ neuvering,
and
Chapter
5
explores
this
importance.
Commu‐ Christopher W. Tindale 368 nicative
activity
 types
need
to
be
distinguished
 from
com‐ municative
activities,
like
deliberation.
The
focus
is
on
activ‐ ity
 types
 like
 those
 that
 are
 legal,
 political,
 interpersonal,
 scholarly,
medical,
commercial,
problem‐solving,
and
diplo‐ matic.
And
they
can
all
be
defined
by
the
goals
involved
(p.
 144).
For
example,
the
political
activity
type
aims
at
democ‐ racy,
while
the
legal
at
justice. 
 Once
again,
 there
are
precedents
 in
 the
 tradition
 for
 ideas
such
as
 these.
They
are
closely
compared
 to
Walton
 and
 Krabbe’s
 dialogue
 types
 as
 contexts
 of
 conversational
 argument,
 and
 even
 to
 Bakhtin’s
 speech
 genres.
 But
 also
 again,
they
remedy
problems
found
in
their
earlier
counter‐ parts
such
as
 the
unclear
 theoretical
status
of
Walton
and
 Krabbe’s
concept
of
dialogue
type
(p.
134).
 
 In
 Chapter
 6,
 a
 further
 set
 of
 parameters
 governing
 strategic
maneuvering
is
illustrated
through
the
analysis
of
 the
Shell
advertorial
 regarding
 its
 role
 in
Nigeria
 in
1995.
 These
parameters
involve
the
results
that
can
be
achieved
in
 making
specific
moves,
the
routes
taken
to
achieve
them,
the
 constraints
 imposed
 by
 the
 institutional
 context,
 and
 the
 commitments
 of
 the
 parties
 defining
 the
 argumentative
 situation.

In
the
Shell
case,
for
example,
van
Eemeren
shows
 how
 “at
 each
 of
 the
 four
 stages
 of
 its
 argumentative
 dis‐ course,
Shell
strategically
uses
the
available
topical
potential,
 adapts
its
message
to
the
views
and
preferences
of
the
audi‐ ence,
and
exploits
certain
presentational
devices”
(p.
168).
 He
then
determines
the
strategic
function
of
the
argumenta‐ tive
moves
pertinent
to
his
analysis
by
concentrating
on
the
 results
 Shell
 aspires
 to,
 the
 routes
 available
 for
 achieving
 them,
 the
 institutional
 constraints
 conveyed
 through
 the
 properties
 of
 the
 activity
 type
 involved,
 and
 the
 commit‐ ments
 expressed
 through
 the
 argumentative
 situation.
 As
 before,
in
the
discussions
of
these
ideas
earlier
theorists
are
 invoked
and
revised.
Lloyd
Bitzer’s
concern
with
constraints
 in
 his
 examination
 of
 the
 rhetorical
 situation
 is
 a
 case
 in
 point
(pp.
180‐182). 
 The
pragma‐dialectical
 theory
of
 fallacies—that
a
 fal‐ lacy
is
any
violation
of
one
or
more
of
the
rules
governing
a
 critical
discussion—is
now
familiar
in
the
field.
This
theory
 is
rehearsed
in
Chapter
7,
along
with
other
accounts
of
falla‐ cies.
We
then
learn
what
strategic
maneuvering
contributes
 to
 the
 study
 and
 understanding
 of
 fallacies.
 Fallacy
 judg‐ ments
depend
on
the
activity
type
involved
and
thus
are
al‐ ways
contextual
(p.
198).
When
effectiveness
overrules
rea‐ sonableness
we
have
a
derailment.
But
these
can
be
difficult
 Review of Strategic Maneuvering 369 to
identify
because
each
fallacy
has
a
sound
counterpart.
In
a
 veiled
allusion
to
C.L.
Hamblin’s
famous
definition,
fallacies
 here
are

“strategic
maneuvers
that
seem
to
comply
with
the
 critical
discussion
rules
but
in
fact
do
not”
(p.
199).
The
de‐ tails
of
the
strategic
maneuvering
project
are
thus
deemed
to
 better
explain
how
fallacies
work
in
practice,
how
they
de‐ ceive
 in
 part
 because
 of
 their
 similarity
 to
 legitimate
 in‐ stances.
 Determining
 a
 fallacy
 in
 any
 case
 is
 contextual,
 based
on
a
prior
understanding
of
clear
cases
of
sound
stra‐ tegic
 maneuvering
 (p.
 202),
 and
 the
 chapter
 closes
 with
 some
illustrations
of
this,
including
the
Shell
advertorial. 
 A
further
nuance
to
our
understanding
of
the
pragma‐ dialectical
 treatment
 of
 fallacies
 is
 provided
 in
 Chapter
 9.
 Taking
inconsistency
as
something
that
can
have
legitimate
 and
 fallacious
 instances,
 and
 exploring
 it
 through
 some
 complex
 cases,
 van
 Eemeren
 entertains
 the
 question
 of
 whether
fallacies
can
be
repaired.
He
believes
they
can,
and
 after
looking
at
similar
attempts
in
the
work
of
Erik
Krabbe
 and
Scott
Jacobs,
he
provides
a
solution
for
re‐railing
what
 has
 been
 derailed
 by
 adopting
 a
 middle
 position
 between
 those
of
these
two
theorists.
The
party
who
detects
the
fal‐ lacy
assumes
the
other
still
wants
to
resolve
the
difference
 between
them
and
so
points
out
that
the
other
party’s
“stra‐ tegic
maneuvering
as
regards
this
issue,
 in
response
to
this
 opponent,
and
presented
in
this
way
has
in
this
case
derailed”
 (p.
 260).
 The
 party
 then
 continues
 this
 sub‐discussion
 so
 that
a
re‐railment
 is
brought
about
that
brings
the
discus‐ sion
back
on
track
(p.
261).
Strictly
speaking,
 it
 is
the
dia‐ logue
that
is
repaired
rather
than
the
fallacy,
which
retains
 its
incorrectness
and
thus
must
be
maneuvered
around. 
 The
above
account
of
the
book
does
not
cover
all
the
 themes
and
details
provided.
There
is
no
room
to
consider
 the
treatment
of
burden
of
proof
in
Chapter
8,
for
example.
 But
enough
has
been
relayed
to
indicate
the
coherence
of
the
 various
elements
of
strategic
maneuvering
as
a
theoretical
 extension
to
pragma‐dialectics.
It
is
made
quite
clear
that
the
 research
 is
 ongoing
 and
 several
 aspects
 need
 further
 re‐ finement
and
development.
There
are
also
many
points
at
 which
the
theoretical
work
of
other
theorists
is
challenged
in
 a
constructive
way
in
order
to
point
to
revisions
that
strate‐ gic
maneuvering
can
adopt. 
 A
testament
to
the
richness
and
importance
of
a
theory
 is
the
range
of
critical
debates
it
inaugurates,
and
there
will
 be
more
than
a
few
issuing
here.
We
may
question,
for
ex‐ ample,
 how
 innovative
 the
 theory
 really
 is
 and
 whether
 Christopher W. Tindale 370 there
is
the
need
to
repeatedly
recast
ideas
in
new
terms.
As
 it
is
often
observed
in
the
text,
much
of
it
is
original
in
its
ex‐ pression
or
naming,
not
in
its
nature.
The
issue
of
choice
is
 an
important
one
to
stress
and
explore.
Too
often,
students
 are
presented
with
argumentation
 that
 is
 ready‐made
and
 asked
only
to
evaluate
it.
They
rarely
have
a
sense
of
how
 that
argumentation
came
about
and,
most
importantly,
the
 different
possibilities
that
would
have
been
available
to
the
 arguers
and
the
reasons
they
took
the
routes
they
did.
The
 attention
to
choice
shifts
the
focus
onto
to
participants’
deci‐ sion
making
at
each
stage
of
an
exchange.
But
the
theorists
 who
have
approached
questions
of
choice
all
seem
to
do
so
 in
very
similar
ways.
Perelman
and
Olbrechts‐Tyteca
(1969)
 provided
a
similar
triad
to
the
one
used
here,
with,
for
ex‐ ample,
communion
capturing
the
sense
of
audience
demand.
 And
van
Eemeren
recognizes
that
the
triad
has
been
studied
 by
other
authors
(p.
101).
Now
we
have
the
new
language
of
 topical
potential,
audience
demand,
and
presentational
de‐ vice.
 But
 we
 may
 be
 left
 wondering
 how
 much
 we
 really
 needed
new
terminology
to
capture
previous
ideas.
Chapter
 10
extends
an
implicit
invitation
to
others,
welcoming
what
 is
 happening
 in
 other
 approaches
 and
 the
 inspiration
 of
 critical
exchanges.
 “Therefore,
 regular
contacts
need
 to
be
 maintained
with
fellow
argumentation
theorists
represent‐ ing
 other
 approaches”
 (p.
 265).
 It
 is
 heartening
 to
 see
 no
 tendency
toward
insularity.
But
this
openness
might
also
be
 advanced
on
 the
 level
of
more
agreements
 in
 terminology
 and
meanings.
 
 Furthermore,
while
strategic
maneuvering
claims
to
be
 selective
in
what
it
adopts
from
rhetoric,
some
remarks
and
 discussions
tend
to
contradict
this.
Throughout
the
book
the
 reader
might
wonder
what
is
not
taken
from
the
full
rhetori‐ cal
 ledger.
 Indeed,
 the
question
of
ethos,
one
of
 those
 fea‐ tures
so
readily
marginalized
in
the
standard
theory,
is
often
 raised,
sometimes
under
the
guise
of
other
language.
This
is
 most
readily
apparent
in
the
analysis
of
strategic
maneuver‐ ing
 in
 the
 Shell
 advertorial.
 There
 are
 references
 to
 Shell
 creating
an
image
and
maintaining
it.
References
that
speak
 of
the
company
enhancing
its
credibility
by
emphasizing
its
 knowledge
and
respect
for
truth
(p.
173).
Then,
there
is
an
 explicit
mention
of
 the
wish
 to
 “enhance
 its
humanitarian
 ethos”
(p.
174).
The
Carlsberg
and
Trouw
examples
in
Chap‐ ter
8
receive
a
similar
aside.
The
language
used
by
the
two
 entities
 is
 judged
 to
 advance
 evaluative
 standpoints
 and
 suggest
objective
justification
for
them.
But
an
accompany‐ Review of Strategic Maneuvering 371 ing
 footnote
observes:
 “Another
rhetorical
 function
of
 this
 phrasing
could,
of
course,
be
raising
Carlsberg’s
and
Trouw’s
 ethos”
(p.
240,
n.
45).
This
all
points
to
the
recognition
of
an
 alternative
rhetorical
reading
of
the
examples,
using
terms
 from
the
rhetorical
tradition
which
have
not
been
explicitly
 adopted
 in
 the
 language
 of
 strategic
 maneuvering.
 This
 is
 more
explicitly
admitted
 in
an
earlier
comment,
also
mar‐ ginalized
in
a
footnote.
In
the
midst
of
Chapter
4’s
discussion
 of
the
strategic
maneuvering
triad,
we
are
alerted
to
the
fol‐ lowing,
 apparently
 favorable,
 note:
 “In
 Fahnestock’s
 view,
 the
first
two
aspects
of
strategic
maneuvering,
topical
selec‐ tion
and
adaptation
to
audience
demand,
 link
to
 logos
and
 pathos;
 the
 second
 aspect
 “could
 be
 expanded
 to
 include
 how
rhetors
construct
themselves
as
well
as
their
audiences
 in
their
language
choices,
thereby
projecting
an
ethos
appro‐ priate
to
the
occasion
and
heir
goals”’
(p.
96,
n.
4).
Indeed,
 this
 expansion
 is
 exactly
 what
 strategic
 maneuvering
 is
 shown
to
include
in
the
key
examples
of
the
later
chapters.
 The
note
concludes
with
a
more
telling
remark
from
Fahne‐ stock:
“In
short,
the
complete
rhetorical
canon
may
be
useful
 in
the
pragma‐dialectical
pursuit
of
how
meeting
rhetorical
 goals
 can
 still
 satisfy
 dialectical
 demands”
 (Fahnestock,
 2009:211).
If
Fahnestock
is
right—and
van
Eemeren
in
re‐ porting
 of
 this
 insight
 without
 comment
 would
 seem
 to
 agree—then
strategic
maneuvering
is
not
as
selective
in
its
 adoption
of
rhetoric
as
claimed.
 
 Perhaps
this
further
accommodation
of
the
rhetorical
 is
what
awaits
strategic
maneuvering
as
research
on
it
con‐ tinues.
The
final
Chapter
of
the
book
encourages
such
open
 thinking.
One
of
the
announced
areas
for
further
research
is
 “the
use
of
values
and
value
hierarchies
in
strategic
maneu‐ vering”
 (p.
267),
 and
 there
will
be
much
 in
 the
 rhetorical
 cannon
 (and
 from
 modern
 rhetorical
 theorists)
 that
 could
 contribute
 to
 this.
 All
 this
 bodes
 well
 for
 a
 theory
 that
 seemed
at
once
 turned
 in
on
 itself
but
has
now
 found
an
 avenue
to
expand
and
advance
and
become
even
more
able
 to
accommodate
argumentation
in
its
natural
environments.
 We
may
quibble
about
the
exact
relationship
that
should
ex‐ ist
between
the
dialectical
and
rhetorical
perspectives,
but
 that
there
is
wide
agreement
on
a
relationship
at
all
can
be
 judged
a
move
in
the
right
direction.
Strategic
Maneuvering
 in
Argumentative
Discourse
is
a
welcome
addition
to
a
grow‐ ing
 number
 of
 standard
 texts
 in
 argumentation
 theory.
 It
 should
replace
earlier
books
as
the
one
to
use
when
teaching
 both
the
standard
and
extended
theories.
And
with
that
in
 Christopher W. Tindale 372 mind,
 we
 might
 hope
 John
 Benjamins
 sees
 fit
 to
 offer
 a
 cheaper
paperback
version
in
the
near
future.

 
 References
 Braet,
A.
 (2007).
De
Redelijkheid
van
de
Klassieke
Retorica:
 De
 Bijdrage
 van
 Klassieke
 Retorici
 aan
 de
 Argumentati­ etheorie
 [The
 Reasonableness
 of
 Classical
 Rhetoric:
 The
 Contribution
 of
 Classical
 Rhetoricians
 to
 Argumentation
 Theory].
Leiden:
Leiden
University
Press.
 Brandom,
R.
(1994).
Making
it
Explicit:
Reasoning,
Represent­ ing,
and
Discursive
Commitment.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
 University
Press.
 Eemeren,
F.
H.
van,
and
R.
Grootendorst.
(1992).
Argumenta­ tion,
 Communication,
 and
 Fallacies.
 Hillsdale,
 NJ:
 Law‐ rence
Erlbaum.
 Eemeren,
F.
H.
van,
and
R.
Grootendorst.
(2004).
A
System­ atic
Theory
of
Argumentation:
The
Pragma­Dialectical
Ap­ proach.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press.
 Fahnestock,
 J.
(2009).
“Quid
Pro
Nobis:
Rhetorical
Stylistics
 for
Argument
Analysis.”
In
F.H.
van
Eemeren
(Ed.),
Exam­ ining
Argumentation
in
Context:
Fifteen
Studies
on
Strate­ gic
Maneuvering,
pp.
131‐152.
Amsterdam:
John
Benjman‐ ins.
 Perelman,
 Ch.
 and
 L.
 Olbrechts‐Tyteca.
 (1969).
 The
 New
 Rhetoric:
 A
 Treatise
 on
 Argumentation,
 John
 Wilkinson
 and
Purcell
Weaver
(Trans.),
Notre
Dame,
IN:
University
 of
Notre
Dame
Press.
 Rubinelli,
 S.
 (2009).
 Ars
 Topica
 The
 Classical
 Technique
 of
 Constructing
 Arguments
 from
 Aristotle
 to
 Cicero.
 Dordrecht:
Springer. Christopher W. Tindale CRRAR & Dept. of Philosophy University of Windsor Windsor, ON Canada N9B 3P4 ctindale@uwindsor.ca