Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation

Communication Argumentation
by
Beth Innocenti

Introduction

Two broad divisions characterize orientations to studies of argumentation by communication scholars and scholars in other disciplines. First, communication scholars perform descriptive and normative studies of argumentation, as well as studies that attempt to integrate these two perspectives. Descriptive studies typically employ social scientific research methods and may analyze argumentation in both laboratory and real-world settings. Normative studies typically employ humanistic research methods and frequently analyze argumentation in the public sphere. Second, scholars may view argumentation as more of an epistemological activity—one that generates knowledge or justifies belief—or as more of a practical activity that is designed to achieve a variety of outcomes such as persuasion, consideration of a proposal, or acceptance of a premise. Basic questions addressed by argumentation research include: How should we define “argumentation?” How should we analyze it? How should we evaluate it?

Textbooks

Textbooks typically feature the production, presentation, analysis, and evaluation of arguments. Authors’ treatment of these topics is shaped by their theoretical perspective. Working from a pragma-dialectical perspective, van Eemeren, et al. 2002 coaches students in conducting a critical discussion designed to resolve a difference of opinion. Coming out of a speech communication tradition, Inch and Warnick 2010 is oriented toward debate. This source also covers public discourse more broadly, as does Corbett and Eberly 2000, but from the discipline of composition rather than communication. Govier 2005 and Johnson and Blair 2006 come to argumentation from informal logic. Govier focuses more on argument schemes such as generalizations and analogies, and Johnson and Blair include a detailed discussion of fallacies. Herrick 2007 (in detail) and Weston 2000 (more synoptically) cover argument schemes and fallacies as well, although their discussions are oriented toward presentation to situated audiences and so are more rhetorical.

  • Corbett, Edward P. J., and Rosa A. Eberly. 2000. The elements of reasoning, 2d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers reasoning and invention more generally, and specific kinds of arguments: fact, definition, causes and consequences, values, and proposals. Concludes with a chapter on “citizen critics”—an orientation also informing Eberly’s scholarship on the public sphere—that covers fallacies. Includes exercises. Good introduction for novices.

    Find this resource:

  • Govier, Trudy. 2005. A practical study of argument. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Oriented more toward critiquing than practicing argumentation. Covers what arguments are and how to analyze and evaluate them. Treats in detail specific kinds of deductive and inductive arguments, including categorical and propositional logic, causal reasoning, and analogies. Cites argumentation research and includes exercises. Better for advanced undergraduates than novices.

    Find this resource:

  • Herrick, James A. 2007. Argumentation: Understanding and shaping arguments. 3d ed. State College, PA: Strata.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Oriented more toward critiquing than practicing argumentation, but includes a section on developing a case and adapting to audiences. Covers what argumentation is and conditions for good ones, as well as analysis and evaluation of different argument types, including categorical, definitional, analogies and examples, causal reasoning, and fallacies. Includes exercises.

    Find this resource:

  • Inch, Edward S., and Barbara Warnick. 2010. Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Oriented more toward debate. Organized around defining argument and its contexts, different kinds of claims and propositions, different kinds of evidence, and arguing about values and about policies. Attempts to balance criticizing and producing arguments. Better for advanced undergraduates than novices.

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 2006. Logical self-defense. New York: International Debate Education Association.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Organized around the basics of identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and producing arguments; fallacies; argumentation and mass media; and advanced analysis and production of arguments. Good introduction for novices.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Organized around analysis, evaluation, and presentation of arguments from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Explains analyzing arguments as critical discussions—procedures for resolving a difference of opinion. Defines fallacies as violations of rules for critical discussions. Presentation covers oral and written arguments. Includes exercises and further reading, mostly in pragma-dialectical theory.

    Find this resource:

  • Weston, Anthony. 2000. A rulebook of arguments. 3d ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    In about a hundred pages, covers different kinds of arguments and rules for evaluating them, including example, analogy, authority, cause, and deductive forms; researching, outlining, and writing an argumentative essay; and fallacies. Includes many examples. Ideal for beginners and as a quick reference.

    Find this resource:

Anthologies

In contrast to textbooks, anthologies tend to include research from a range of theoretical perspectives. Aguayo and Steffensmeier 2008, Benoit, et al. 1992, and Trapp and Schuetz 1990 include landmark essays in argumentation. Hansen and Pinto 2007 includes important essays from an informal logic perspective. The essays in Schiappa 1995 are written from a rhetorical perspective but involve different philosophical orientations. The edited collections in van Eemeren, et al. 2003 and van Eemeren, et al. 2009 are good sources of contemporary argumentation research, and van Eemeren 1996 continues to serve as a comprehensive overview of argumentation studies.

  • Aguayo, Angela, J., and Timothy R. Steffensmeier, eds. 2008. Readings in argumentation. State College, PA: Strata.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Essays organized around the nature of arguments, evaluating arguments, and spheres and uses of argument. Most approaches are rhetorical but also include informal logic and pragma-dialectics. Most essays are theoretical but also include studies of actual political and legal argumentation as well as visual arguments. Good introduction to the field.

    Find this resource:

  • Benoit, William L., Dale Hample, and Pamela J. Benoit, eds. 1992. Readings in argumentation. New York: Foris.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Selections cover fundamental issues in argumentation research, including defining argument from the perspectives of scholars and naïve social actors; argument analysis and evaluation; arguing about values and argument fields; early pragma-dialectical research; and argumentation in contexts including interpersonal, marriage, and groups.

    Find this resource:

  • Hansen, Hans V., and Robert C. Pinto, eds. 2007. Reason reclaimed: Essays in honor of J. Anthony Blair and Ralph H. Johnson. Newport News, VA: Vale.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Essays cover major issues including the dialectical dimension of arguing, the nature and scope of argument, fallacies, and other dimensions involving context, probability, and the nature of reason by major figures in informal logic and argumentation. Better for intermediate students than beginners.

    Find this resource:

  • Schiappa, Edward, ed. 1995. Warranting assent: Case studies in argument evaluation. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Essays focus on evaluating actual argumentation from rhetoric and communication perspectives. They are organized around epistemological, axiological, and ideological approaches to evaluation and cover argumentation in political, legal, and religious contexts. Appropriate for more advanced students and scholars.

    Find this resource:

  • Trapp, Robert, and Janice Schuetz, eds. 1990. Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Manageable introduction to the field and still in print. Covers definitions of argumentation; contexts such as interpersonal, political, and philosophical; and special topics such as narrative argument. Most essays are written from a rhetoric and communication perspective, but informal logic and pragma-dialectics make appearances.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, eds. 2003. Anyone who has a view: Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Eclectic collection of essays that shows the range of perspectives and issues involved in argumentation theory research. Pragma-dialectics, informal logic, rhetoric, normative pragmatic, and communication studies are included. Essays feature topics from analysis of political argumentation, to software that diagrams argumentation, to linguistic analyses. Good source for advanced students.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen, eds. 2009. Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes essays on analyzing and evaluating argumentation from a variety of perspectives. Grouped under headings of argumentative strategies, norms of reasonableness and fallaciousness, types of argument and argument schemes, structure of argumentation, and rules for advocacy and discussion. Good sample of current research for more advanced students.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Comprehensive introduction to argumentation with pragma-dialectical orientation. Organized into historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Historical material covers the triumvirate of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric; fallacies; Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s The New Rhetoric; and the Toulmin model. Contemporary material covers informal logic, communication and rhetoric, fallacies, pragma-dialectics, and more.

    Find this resource:

Journals

Some peer-reviewed journals are devoted to argumentation studies, and some journals include argumentation research. Argumentation is the most eclectic, regularly publishing research in all areas of argumentation studies and begun by and edited by researchers in pragma-dialectics. Argumentation and Advocacy, Quarterly Journal of Speech, and Rhetoric and Public Affairs typically publish studies of argumentation from a rhetorical perspective or a focus on situated audiences in context. Both Informal Logic and Philosophy and Rhetoric are oriented toward philosophers; Informal Logic is oriented toward philosophers who teach informal logic and critical thinking, and Philosophy and Rhetoric is oriented toward both philosophers and rhetoricians.

Conferences

There are currently three main conferences devoted to argumentation, and the proceedings of each are published . Alta is oriented more toward rhetoric, debate, and communication. OSSA is a small conference hosted by informal logicians. ISSA is a large conference hosted by pragma-dialecticians. Although each conference may have a specific theme, the papers presented run the gamut of argumentation studies. Presenters work from all theoretical perspectives and consider different kinds of contexts. Wake Forest University also hosts a biennial argumentation conference oriented toward rhetoric, debate, and communication. Communication scholars will also find argumentation research presented at NCA and RSA as well as at regional conferences and conferences in cognate areas such as linguistics.

Defining Argument

Wenzel 1990 outlines possible answers to the question “What is argument?” depending on one’s theoretical perspective, so it is a good orientation to other positions. A more technical discussion, O’Keefe 1982, draws fundamental distinctions that also serve to orient. Brockriede 1972, Ehninger 1970, and Goodwin 2007 outline competing views in the course of defending their own; all work from a rhetorical perspective. Informal logical and pragma-dialectical views can be gleaned from Wenzel 1990.

  • Brockriede, Wayne. 1972. Arguers as lovers. Philosophy and Rhetoric 5:1–11.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that relationships among arguers can serve as a basis for classifying argumentative transactions. Covers argument as rape, seduction, and love. Analyzes each by the topics of attitudes toward one another, intentions toward one another, and consequences of both for the act of arguing.

    Find this resource:

  • Ehninger, Douglas. 1970. Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations and its uses. Speech Monographs 37:101–110.

    DOI: 10.1080/03637757009375654Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Classifies argument as a species of correction that is self-regulating and involves risks. Contrasts argument with coercive correction: unilateral vs. bilateral, probability vs. certainty, standards of success, arguer attitude, risks. Limits include irresolvable, mutually exclusive alternatives, discursive only, and only addresses means—not ends. Argument is preferable to chance, authority, and intuition.

    Find this resource:

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2007a. Argument has no function. Informal Logic 27:69–90.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Takes issue with a view of argument as a joint activity functioning to achieve social good by following the rules necessary for the joint activity to achieve its function. Proposes an alternative view involving designing argumentation to create reasons for hearers to respond as the arguer desires.

    Find this resource:

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2007b. Theoretical pieties, Johnstone’s impiety, and ordinary views of argumentation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 40:36–50.

    DOI: 10.1353/par.2007.0012Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers accounts of arguing that define away negative views of arguing, Johnstone’s competing view, and ordinary student views. Competing views include underlying consensus vs. disagreement; alternative to force vs. force; contained vs. inevitable conflict. Proposes viewing argument as a way of coming to stand more solidly in the world.

    Find this resource:

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In Advances in argumentation theory and research. Edited by J. Robert Cox and Charles Arthur Willard, 3–23. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press, 1982.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Clarifies the concepts of argument and arguing by defining paradigm cases. Includes basic distinction between argument1 (a kind of utterance or a sort of communicative act) and argument (interactions in which extended overt disagreement between the interactants occurs). Also describes argument making. Good starting point for theory construction.

    Find this resource:

  • Wenzel, Joseph W. 1990. Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In Perspectives on argumentation: Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede. Edited by Robert Trapp and Janice Schuetz, 9–26. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Accounts of argument—its purposes, scope and focus, situations, resources, standards and roles—depend on the scholar’s perspective. Rhetoric, dialectic, and logic correspond to argument as process, procedure, and product. A clear introduction to argumentation theories for newcomers.

    Find this resource:

Theories

Setting aside the issue of what theories are, it continues to be useful to distinguish among the main theoretical perspectives that characterize argumentation studies. They differ in areas such as the methods they use to analyze arguments, and whether and how they evaluate arguments. The subsections under this section focus individually on each of the following perspectives. Pragma-dialectical researchanalyzes and evaluates argumentation as a procedure for resolving a difference of opinion and uses both humanistic and social scientific research methods. It aims to be both descriptive and normative. Typically, informal logic research involves analyzing arguments in terms of premises and conclusions and evaluating them according to criteria such as acceptability, relevance, and sufficiency. It is normative. Recent research by both pragma-dialecticians and informal logicians has attempted to incorporate rhetorical insights. Rhetorical research tends to be normative and may be characterized by its use of humanistic research methods and its attention to situated audiences and more focus on public contexts. Communication research is primarily descriptive and may be characterized by its use of social scientific research methods and more focus on interpersonal contexts. Normative pragmatic research is both normative and descriptive, uses humanistic research methods, and views context as constituted by arguers’ talk.

Pragma-Dialectical

The pragma-dialecticians continue to systematically develop a theory of argumentation that analyzes and evaluates argumentation as a critical discussion—a procedure for resolving a difference of opinion. Also known as the Amsterdam School, these researchers have developed a graduate program in argumentation at the University of Amsterdam focusing on the development of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, host the ISSA conference (see Conferences), and publish the journal Argumentation (see Journals) and a book series. Broadly speaking, there have been two stages to the theory construction: foundations of the critical discussion model and strategic maneuvering. The model of a critical discussion and the analytical and evaluative procedures it involves are detailed in van Eemeren, et al. 1993 and van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992; and a detailed, technical theoretical treatment of that part of the pragma-dialectical theory is provided in van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004. Strategic maneuvering is overviewed in van Eemeren 2009, and more detailed consideration of context is exemplified by Mohammed 2008. Empirical testing of pragma-dialectical rules is reported in van Eemeren, et al. 2009.

  • Mohammed, Dima. 2008. Institutional insights for analysing strategic manoeuvring in the British prime minister’s question time. Argumentation 22:377–393.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9090-2Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes institutional context in the pragma-dialectical theoretical framework. Argues that the purpose of question time is to hold the government accountable, and the norm of critical testing is instrumental for achieving this purpose. Proposes using a dialectical profile to absorb the concrete, actual argumentative moves into analytical reconstruction.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., ed. 2009. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    First chapter overviews strategic maneuvering, which refers to efforts to reconcile the aim of getting one’s own way with the aim of resolving a difference of opinion in a reasonable way. Comprises research from different perspectives and contexts of argumentation.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans, Bart Garssen, and Bert Meuffels. 2009. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Results of empirical studies on pragma-dialectical rules for critical discussions designed to determine to what extent ordinary arguers accept them. Views fallacies as violations of rules for critical discussion. Organized around stages of critical discussion: opening, confrontation, argumentation, conclusion. Overall, results confirm that ordinary arguers regard pragma-dialectical fallacies as unreasonable moves.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An overview of the pragma-dialectical perspective that serves as a good introduction. Covers assumptions, their view of argumentation, role of speech acts in it, basics of argument analysis, and evaluation based on whether the argumentation adheres to rules of a critical discussion designed to resolve a difference of opinion.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., Rob Grootendorst, Sally Jackson, and Scott Jacobs. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Introduces a method of reconstructing argumentation described as normative description since it aims to merge descriptive and normative accounts of argumentation. Argumentation is reconstructed as a critical discussion designed to resolve a difference of opinion. Includes examples of reconstructions of actual discourse in mediation.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Overviews the pragma-dialectical research program, critical discussion model, and the modes of analysis and evaluation that follow from it. Includes a chapter with a simplified version of critical discussion rules. Theoretical and technical discussion. Better for summary than introduction to the theory.

    Find this resource:

Informal Logic

This perspective developed from dissatisfaction with the applicability of formal logic to actual argumentation. The core method of analysis involves standardizing argumentation as premises and conclusions, and evaluation involves identification of fallacies. Johnson and Blair 2000 provides an overview. Toulmin 1958 expands on the traditional model by including other elements, such as warrants. Hamblin 1970 takes issue with the standard formal logical treatment of fallacies. Johnson 2000 adds a dialectical tier to evaluation. Govier 1987 and Walton 2008 provide good introductions to major issues, and Finocchiaro 2005 and Pinto 2001 reflect the philosophical thinking that orients researchers working in informal logic.

  • Finocchiaro, Maurice A. 2005. Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Collection of essays over time by the author on topics including theorizing about reasoning and argument, fallacies, dialectical approaches, and historical analyses of critical thinking in science. Identifies important issues, possible positions, and relevant scholarship. Oriented toward advanced students with a philosophical bent.

    Find this resource:

  • Govier, Trudy. 1987. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers fundamental issues in theorizing about argumentation. Introduces issues related to topics such as distinguishing inductive and deductive arguments, filling in missing premises, the differences between arguments and explanations, fallacies, and critical thinking. Excellent starting point for identifying issues and possible positions on them.

    Find this resource:

  • Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Canonical and frequently cited; reprinted in 1994. Covers historical treatments of fallacies from Aristotle forward in Europe and India. Argues that formal logic cannot provide a general theory of fallacy. Supports alternative ways of talking about arguments and their evaluation, and in particular viewing arguments as put forward in a dialectical context.

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Presents a theory of argument grounded in informal logic and focuses on evaluating arguments. Views argumentation as a practice designed to achieve rational persuasion. Proposes evaluating both the illative core (premises and conclusions) and dialectical tier (alternative positions and standard objections).

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 2000. Informal Logic: An Overview. Informal Logic 20:93–107.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers positions on the issue of what is informal logic. Identifies areas of research and cites sources for each. Areas include argument as dialogue, argument schemes, structures and diagrams, fallacies, and more. Suggests areas for future research, including analysis and evaluation and resources for informal logic such as journals and conferences.

    Find this resource:

  • Pinto, Robert C. 2001. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Philosophical treatments of topics in argumentation that have been the focus of researchers in informal logic, and in particular how informal logic challenges commonplaces of traditional logic. Topics include what argument is, inference, argument schemes, fallacies, and standards of evaluation. Technical discussions for advanced students.

    Find this resource:

  • Toulmin, Stephen. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Canonical text in informal logic and argumentation. Includes chapters on topics of enduring interest in argumentation research, including argument fields, probability, and argument analysis. Source of the Toulmin model, which continues to be featured in argumentation and public speaking textbooks.

    Find this resource:

  • Walton, Douglas N. 2008. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. 2d ed. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Introduction to critical methods for evaluating arguments. Assumes argument is reasoned dialogue. Defines six dialogue types (persuasion, inquiry, negotiation, information seeking, deliberation, eristic). Covers topics such as argument schemes and appeals to emotion and authority and personal attacks; considers them in the context of dialogue types in order to evaluate them.

    Find this resource:

Rhetorical

Students of rhetoric initially studied argumentation as part of university speech and debate programs, and began to perform research in argumentation as speech became a research area and scholarly discipline. Given the absence of consensus on what rhetoric is, it is not surprising that theories of argumentation from a rhetorical perspective are quite disparate. Pragma-dialectics attempts to incorporate rhetoric as part of strategic maneuvering and views rhetoric as an attempt to get one’s own way by any means, but rhetorical approaches incorporate other ends and norms. Regarding ends, for Goodwin 2001, speakers design arguments to induce even reluctant addressees to act; likewise, Kock 2009 defines rhetorical argumentation not as persuasion but in terms of a domain: choice of action. Regarding norms, for Gilbert 1997 the key norm is “coalescence”—the merging of two positions into one, or at least the merging of them to the degree that it becomes possible to discuss points of disagreement. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969 holds that the merits of an argument depend on the audience, and Tindale 1999 and Tindale 2004 attempt to develop a model that rescues Perelman from charges of relativism. Weaver 2009 proposes a different standard: the most ethical argument is the one that best captures the essential nature or truth. Whately 1963 proposes standards that are based on logic as well as audience centered.

  • Gilbert, Michael A. 1997. Coalescent argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers argumentation theory—including its history and feminist perspective—and what he describes as multimodal argumentation. Argues for analyzing alternative modes (emotional, visceral, kisceral) and for coalescence as a goal.

    Find this resource:

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2001. Henry Johnstone, Jr.’s still-unacknowledged contributions to contemporary argumentation theory. Informal Logic 21:41–50.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Focuses on Johnstone’s insights: argumentation involves transactions among people; disagreement is fundamental; models of argumentation ought to begin with noncooperation rather a cooperative ideal; rhetoric creates the conditions for arguing with even reluctant addressees and does not persuade so much as induce them to think.

    Find this resource:

  • Kock, Christian. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23:61–80.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9115-xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues for a view of rhetorical argumentation that focuses not on the end of persuasion but centers on a domain of issues, namely choice of action, typically in the civic sphere. Holds that choices about actions are not true or false; reasonable disagreement may persist indefinitely.

    Find this resource:

  • Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Canonical text in argumentation research; reprinted in 2008. Covers topics including the nature of argumentation and audiences, and choice, selection and presentation of premises. Core of the book comprises liaisons based on association (quasi-logical, from the structure of the real, establishing the structure of the real) and dissociation (appearance/reality, philosophical pairs, dissociative definition).

    Find this resource:

  • Tindale, Christopher W. 1999. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Introduces a rhetorical model of argument. Identifies shortcomings of informal logical and dialectical models. Rhetorical model based in part on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s discussions of universal audience and figures and argumentation. Analyzes and evaluates two cases of argumentation to illustrate the model. Covers fallacies and critiques of reason.

    Find this resource:

  • Tindale, Christopher W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Makes a case for a rhetorical perspective that subsumes logical and dialectical perspectives. Covers some classical history of argument, argues that some figures are arguments, develops Bakhtinian view of dialogic argument, and covers ways of assessing argumentation with respect to audiences based on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s “universal audience.”

    Find this resource:

  • Weaver, Richard M. 2009. The ethics of rhetoric. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Chapters cover the nature of ethical rhetoric, including arguments and style. Analyzes arguments from definition, analogy, and circumstances; and argues that arguments from definition are most ethical because they best capture the essential nature of things. Illustrates positions with rhetoric of Edmund Burke and Abraham Lincoln.

    Find this resource:

  • Whately, Richard. 1963. Elements of rhetoric. Edited by Douglas Ehninger. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Although first published in the 19th century, continues to be a starting point for research on burden of proof. Covers argument, emotional appeals, style, and delivery. Defends classification of arguments by whether the premise would account for the conclusion if the conclusion were granted.

    Find this resource:

Communication

Communication research tends to use social scientific research methods to describe and analyze arguments and their effectiveness. A traditional area of research is conversational argument; this research is summarized by Meyers, et al. 2000. Researchers study argumentation in different kinds of contexts. For example, Lee 2008 discusses arguing in an online context, and Feng and Burleson 2008 discusses it in an advice-giving context. Willard 1989 argues that argumentation is best studied from a communication perspective, while O’Keefe 2007 aims to bridge a divide between descriptive social scientific and normative argumentation research.

  • Feng, Bo, and Brant R. Burleson. 2008. The effects of argument explicitness on responses to advice in supportive interactions. Communication Research 35:849–874.

    DOI: 10.1177/0093650208324274Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Social scientific study shows that when advice explicitly covers well the topics of efficacy, feasibility, and potential limitations of a proposed action, addressees evaluate it more positively, view it as contributing to coping efforts, and are more likely to implement it. Covering efficacy was particularly important, and politeness helps.

    Find this resource:

  • Lee, Eun-Ju. 2008. When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments? Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 35:646–665.

    DOI: 10.1177/0093650208321784Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Experiment finding that without biographic information about group members, people were less likely to process partners’ arguments systematically and relied more on how strongly they identified with partners when deciding whether to conform to a group. With brief biographic information, people processed messages more intensely and argument strength predicted conformity behavior.

    Find this resource:

  • Meyers, Renee A., Dale E. Brashers, and Jennifer Hanner. 2000. Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links. Journal of Communication 50.4: 3–30.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02861.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Summarizes Conversational Argument research. Uses social scientific methods. Concludes that majorities tend to win more often than minorities, there are differences in how subgroups argue and differences in winning and losing groups, and consistency predicts subgroup success. Majority subgroups showed significant differences in private acceptance and public compliance.

    Find this resource:

  • O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2007. Potential conflicts between normatively responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research. Argumentation 21:151–163.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-007-9046-ySave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This study points to social-scientific research findings suggesting some ways in which persuasive success may not be entirely compatible with normatively desirable advocacy. Covers gain-loss and success-failure framing, risk information, and self-efficacy appeals.

    Find this resource:

  • Willard, Charles Arthur. 1989. A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that argumentation is best analyzed from the perspective of communication theory, not logic. Defines argument as a kind of interaction. Holds that analysis of argument ought to include anything involved in communicating it—reason-giving, gestures, facial cues, and the like. Covers views of rationality and fallacies more from an interactionist perspective. Better for advanced students than beginners.

    Find this resource:

Normative Pragmatics

This theoretical perspective begins with an adversarial rather than cooperative view of argumentation. Kauffeld 2009 details speech act theory that grounds normative pragmatic analysis. Goodwin 2001, Goodwin 2002, and Kauffeld 1998 explain how arguers design discourse to pressure hearers to do something. Innocenti 2006, Jacobs 2000, and Jacobs 2006 distinguish normative pragmatics from other perspectives and focus on the need for analysis to involve examining strategies arguers actually use and not reconstructing actual argumentation in premise-conclusion form. Evaluation proceeds not by applying rules to a situation but by examining how arguers bring to bear norms of argumentation as they argue. Context is dynamic and generated by arguers’ talk.

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2001. Cicero’s authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34:38–60.

    DOI: 10.1353/par.2001.0003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Makes a case for a “blackmail-bond” model of authority: to avoid insulting a person of dignity, do not openly oppose her. Explains design features: put auditors in a position such that opposing will insult the speaker, and assure auditors that judgment is trustworthy.

    Find this resource:

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2002. Designing issues. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 81–96. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Discusses why we need issues, what issues are, and how arguers design deliberative and forensic issues. Provides a normative pragmatic account: explains why arguers can reasonably expect strategies to work to make something an issue even in adversarial circumstances. Contrasts her approach with a dialectical one.

    Find this resource:

  • Innocenti Manolescu, Beth. 2006. A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation 20:327–343.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-006-9016-9Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that appealing to emotions may be legitimate and that a normative pragmatic perspective offers a more complete account than a pragma-dialectical, informal logical, or rhetorical perspective alone. Features distinctions in analyzing and evaluating among normative pragmatic perspective and others.

    Find this resource:

  • Jacobs, Scott. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007853013191Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Describes normative pragmatics as a way to bridge dialectical and rhetorical theories. Calls for attention to actual strategies rather than reconstruction according to an ideal model, and for recognizing that not all symbolic inducement is argument. Proposes that rhetorical strategies be evaluated by whether they create conditions for deliberation.

    Find this resource:

  • Jacobs, Scott. 2006. Nonfallacious rhetorical strategies: Lyndon Johnson’s daisy ad. Argumentation 20:421–442.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-007-9028-0Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that rhetorical strategies are not simply violations of ideals but may constructively contribute to argumentation. Part of project to integrate logical, dialectical, and rhetorical insights. Argues that key question regarding fallacies is whether or not the strategy degrades the quality of disputation relative to what it might have been.

    Find this resource:

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. 1998. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation 12:245–266.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1007704116379Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues against transferring the concept of presumption in a legal sense to analysis of ordinary acts of proposing and accusing. Explains how speakers design proposals and accusations to pressure reluctant auditors to tentatively consider a proposal or respond to an accusation.

    Find this resource:

  • Kauffeld, Fred J. 2009. Grice’s analysis of utterance-meaning and Cicero’s Catilinarian apostrophe. Argumentation 23:239–257.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9123-xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A technical discussion of speech act theory that grounds normative pragmatic analysis. Speakers undertake commitments and incur obligations just by saying something. Focuses on the need for analysis to include speaker’s intention that addressees recognize speaker’s subintention to induce them to recognize a primary intention.

    Find this resource:

Fallacies

Contemporary fallacy theory began with Hamblin 1970 and its call for an alternative to formal logic. This area has received most attention from informal logicians. Walton 1995 covers a broad range of fallacies in an accessible manner. He is the most prolific scholar on the topic of fallacies; he has written many books on specific fallacies, such as ad hominem, appeal to fear, and begging the question. Hansen and Pinto 1995 offers an accessible introduction to historical sources and issues involved in developing a general fallacy theory and treating specific ones. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 1992 cover the pragma-dialectical view of fallacies. Goodwin 2001 offers a normative pragmatic view of analyzing and evaluating an appeal to dignity of authority.

  • Goodwin, Jean. 2001. Cicero’s authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34:38–60.

    DOI: 10.1353/par.2001.0003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Normative pragmatic account of an appeal often considered a fallacy. Argues that the appeal to the authority of dignity is not a fallacy. It involves designing a message such that authority reasonably pressures hearers to act, provided the speaker is not deceiving them or pressuring them to believe a proposition.

    Find this resource:

  • Hamblin, C. L. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Canonical text in the study of fallacies. Covers the “standard treatment” of the topic: lists of fallacies but no coherent theory of fallacy. Explains limits of formal logic and proposes as an alternative evaluating arguments in a dialectical context. Replaces terms of evaluation such as “true” and “valid” with “accepted.”

    Find this resource:

  • Hansen, Hans V., and Robert C. Pinto, eds. 1995. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes historical sources such as Aristotle, Richard Whately, and J. S. Mill. Covers general fallacy theory and analyses of specific fallacies, including ad hominem, begging the question, and appeal to authority. Covers teaching fallacies. Includes bibliography. Most contributors work from an informal logic perspective, but there are selections from communication and pragma-dialectical perspectives.

    Find this resource:

  • van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbuam.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers the pragma-dialectical view of argumentation and fallacies. Fallacies viewed as violations of rules of a critical discussion; critical discussion is an ideal model of a procedure for resolving a difference of opinion. Discussion of fallacies organized around stages of critical discussion: confrontation, opening, argumentation, conclusion.

    Find this resource:

  • Walton, Douglas. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa: Univ. of Alabama Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes to evaluate fallacies based on argumentation schemes and types of dialogue. Covers a range of formal and informal fallacies. Identifies presumptive argumentation schemes as used in ordinary practical reasoning about probable matters. Defines six dialogue types designed to serve as normative models for evaluating argumentation; one is critical discussion.

    Find this resource:

Visual Argument

Researchers debate what visual argument is, its relationship to verbal argument, and how to analyze it. Johnson 2003 questions the idea and utility of a theory of visual argument. Groarke 1996 and Groarke 2002 try to build a theory of visual argumentation using insights from informal logic and pragma-dialectics. Slade 2003 recommends using semiotic theories designed specifically for the visual. Palczewski 2005 illustrates ways of using historical and contextual research to ground interpretations of images, and Hariman and Lucaites 2007 analyzes images in a broader context of US public culture. The 2007 Argumentation and Advocacy special issue illustrates a range of approaches to visual argumentation of various kinds.

  • Groarke, Leo. 1996. Logic, art and argument. Informal Logic 18:105–129.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that some ways of analyzing and assessing verbal arguments work for visual arguments. Holds that while argumentative analysis may not be appropriate for all images, it certainly is for some. Illustrates points with analyses and evaluations of a range of images, including political cartoons and works of art.

    Find this resource:

  • Groarke, Leo. 2002. Toward a pragma-dialectics of visual argument. In Advances in pragma-dialectics. Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, 137–151. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that analysis and evaluation of visual arguments can proceed by pragma-dialectical methods used to analyze and evaluate verbal arguments. Shows that images can be viewed as speech acts in a critical discussion. Illustrates points with analysis and evaluation of a variety of images.

    Find this resource:

  • Hariman, Robert, and John Louis Lucaites. 2007. No caption needed: Iconic photographs, public culture, and liberal democracy. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Analyzes nine iconic photographs to show how beliefs and actions can be made intelligible, probable, and appealing through visual media. Shows functions that iconic photographs fulfill in US public culture, including arguing for action, communicating social knowledge, modeling citizenship, and serving as a resource for subsequent communication.

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson, Ralph H. 2003. Why ‘visual arguments’ aren’t arguments.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that we do not need a theory of visual argument; there are better methods for promoting visual literacy. What is meant by a “visual argument” is unclear, and there are problems with converting images into verbal propositions. There are not benefits to viewing images as arguments, and there is asymmetry between verbal and visual arguments.

    Find this resource:

  • Palczewski, Catherine H. 2005. The male Madonna and the feminine Uncle Sam: Visual arguments, icons, and ideographs in 1909 anti-woman suffrage postcards. Quarterly Journal of Speech 91:365–394.

    DOI: 10.1080/00335630500488325Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that postcards reflect verbal arguments and that they depart from verbal arguments in arguing that woman suffrage feminizes men. Suggests that the feminization argument may be in postcards only because it may be an unconscious fear. Analyses are grounded in historical, contextual research.

    Find this resource:

  • Shelley, Cameron. 2001. Aspects of visual argument: A study of the March of Progress. Informal Logic 21:85–96.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Analyzes descendants of the original March of Progress image. Identifies demonstrative and rhetorical modes of visual logic. Shows that it is possible to isolate its argumentative components and that those components can be revised and combined with new images to form new arguments.

    Find this resource:

  • Slade, Christina. 2003. Seeing reasons: Visual argumentation in advertisements. Argumentation 17:145–160.

    DOI: 10.1023/A:1024025114369Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that visual images in advertisements function rationally and can be analyzed using methods suited to visual reasoning. Argues that images may function as speech acts, ought to be interpreted in terms of their own semiotic system (not language), and contain their own argumentation structure.

    Find this resource:

  • Special issue on visual argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 43 (2007): 103–188.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Includes a theory of visual argumentation by David S. Birdsell and Leo Groarke, as well as essays that discuss visual argumentation in a range of contexts, including Scandinavian political advertising, prison tattooing, political demonstrations, and brain imaging.

    Find this resource:

Public Sphere

Public sphere and argumentation scholarship addresses issues such as the nature of the public sphere, the role of argumentation in it, and how to evaluate arguments in the public sphere and the functioning of the public sphere itself. Hauser 1999 and Warner 2002 propose text-based definitions of publics; Hauser grounds his discussion more in rhetorical traditions and Warner grounds his more in philosophy. Tannen 1998 argues that argument ought not to be the only way of addressing problems. Keith 2007 provides historical context for disagreement about these issues. Rehg 2009 argues that how well an argument travels among contexts is a sign of its public merits, and Eberly 2000 shows how nonexpert, public arguments about literary fiction may affect social change. Rowland 2006 assesses the functioning of the public sphere by how well actors in it meet their responsibilities, and Goodnight 1982 assesses it by considering the level of encroachment of personal and technical spheres into the public.

  • Eberly, Rosa A. 2000. Citizen critics: Literary public spheres. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes a rhetorical model of how fictional texts create literary public spheres that affect democratic society. Analyzes public discourses produced by nonexpert citizen critics in response to four controversial 20th-century novels. Bridges interests in argumentation studies by composition and communication scholars.

    Find this resource:

  • Goodnight, G. Thomas. 1982. The personal, technical, and public spheres of argument: A Speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18:214–227.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Continues to be cited frequently. Aims to assess the status of deliberative rhetoric. Describes personal, technical, and public spheres of argument. Argues that public sphere is eroded as personal and technical spheres substitute semblance of deliberation for actual deliberation. Calls for alternatives to stave off decline of deliberative argument.

    Find this resource:

  • Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: Univ. of South Carolina Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes a rhetorical framework for understanding publics, public spheres, and public opinion. This involves emphasizing their discursive character—describing publics in terms of their discursive activity rather than polling data. Amplifies with case studies—discourse as actually practiced rather than ideal speech.

    Find this resource:

  • Keith, William M. 2007. Democracy as discussion: Civic education and the American Forum movement. Lanham, MD: Lexington.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers the teaching of argumentation over time in the context of changing pedagogies for changing circumstances. Speech pedagogy initially involved teaching debate as a skill required for citizenship. New visions of democratic politics lead to a new focus on teaching discussion in colleges and as part of adult education.

    Find this resource:

  • Rehg, William. 2009. Cogency in motion: Critical contextualism and relevance. Argumentation 23:39–59.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9114-ySave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Considers how to evaluate public merits of arguments. Argues that a sign of public merits is the capacity of an argument to travel or spread among different local contexts. Contextualist framework views cogency in terms of argument’s content, transactional, and public merits. Argues for a normative heuristic involving context relevance.

    Find this resource:

  • Rowland, Robert C. 2006. Campaign argument and the liberal public sphere: A case study of the process of developing messages in a congressional campaign. Argumentation and Advocacy 42:206–215.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that the public sphere functioned well in some respects but not others in a congressional campaign. Uses experiences in campaign to draw conclusions about the public sphere. Describes liberal public sphere and principal actors: public, representatives, media, and experts. Evaluates functioning of public sphere based on responsibilities of actors.

    Find this resource:

  • Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The argument culture: Moving from debate to dialogue. New York: Random House.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Describes “argument culture” as adversarial, oppositional, critical, aggressive. Defines problem not as arguing but holding that all issues and problems are best approached this way. Proposes other ways of addressing problems, such as focusing on harmony, integrating ideas, believing as well as doubting. Written for a broad audience.

    Find this resource:

  • Warner, Michael. 2002. Publics and counterpublics (abbreviated version). Quarterly Journal of Speech 88:413–425.

    DOI: 10.1080/00335630209384388Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Makes a case for a definition of publics and counterpublics as constituted by texts. Identifies features and argues for their advantages over competing definitions of publics. Features of publics include self-organized, relations among strangers, constituted through attention, and involved in poetic world making (rather than conversation or rational-critical discussion).

    Find this resource:

Argument and Style

Style usually has been treated separately from argument, but some scholars seek a rapprochement. Perelman 1982 and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969 are precursors of this perspective. Conley 1985 makes a case for the inseparability of style and argument, as do Plantin 2009 and Fahnestock 2009, which cover historical treatments and propose research programs. Innocenti 2005 analyzes style as argument from a normative pragmatic perspective, and Snoeck Henkemans 2009 analyzes it from a pragma-dialectical perspective.

  • Conley, Thomas M. 1985. The beauty of lists: Copia and argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 22:96–103.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Analyzes the use of congeries to support the position that style is argument. Makes a case for expanded views of rationality and argument. Techniques of amplification have an argumentative edge and call for value judgments. Judgments are about fit—generating and meeting expectations of consistency and direction.

    Find this resource:

  • Fahnestock, Jeanne. 2009. Quid pro nobis: Rhetorical stylistics for argument analysis. In Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren, 191–220. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Describes approaches to analyzing and assessing style from rhetoric and discourse analysis. Analyzes cases, including some discussed in past research, to illustrate tools. Outlines project for rhetorical stylistics organized around word choice, sentences, interactive dimensions (speaker, audience, context), and passage construction (coherence, sentence variety, amplification, passage patterns such as enthymeme).

    Find this resource:

  • Innocenti Manolescu, Beth. 2005. Norms of presentational force. Argumentation and Advocacy 41:139–151.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Explains how presentational devices may serve as sources of the pragmatic force of arguments. Distinguishes the pragmatic force of arguments from intellectual and social force. Covers logic and presentational force, emotion and presentational force, and style and presentational force. Explains how the normative pragmatic view complements the pragma-dialectical approach to presentational devices.

    Find this resource:

  • Perelman, Chaim. 1982. The realm of rhetoric. Translated by William Kluback. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Accessible introduction to Perelman’s view of rhetoric and argumentation. Covers fundamental topics such as the nature of rhetoric, argumentation, and argument schemes. Integrates style in all respects—figures, word choice, syntax, composition—into discussions of all topics.

    Find this resource:

  • Perelman, Chaim, and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. of Notre Dame Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Canonical treatment of style and argument. Introduces taxonomy of figures: choice, presence, communion. Discussion of figures also integrated into treatment of liaisons or argument schemes. Index includes detailed list of figures discussed.

    Find this resource:

  • Plantin, Christian. 2009. A place for figures of speech in argumentation theory. Argumentation 23:325–337.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9152-0Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers historical treatments of figures with respect to argumentation, with particular attention to Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969. Argues against opposition between argument and figures. Proposes analyzing them as discourse strategies and outlines three topics for investigation: operations on objects, discursive construction of emotions, monological representations of dialogue.

    Find this resource:

  • Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca. 2009. Manoeuvring strategically with praeteritio. Argumentation 23:339–350.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-009-9153-zSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Example of analyzing and evaluating style and argument from a pragma-dialectical perspective. Identifies different ways of presenting praeteritio and different functions it performs such as emphasizing and hiding. Explains how it may be used to strategically maneuver at all stages of an argumentative discussion and may derail the discussion.

    Find this resource:

Argument and Emotion

Scholars have traditionally viewed emotional appeals as fallacies because they are irrelevant and short-circuit reason, but recent research finds a legitimate place for them in argumentation. Plantin 2004 argues that reason and emotion are inseparable in argumentation. Micheli 2010 focuses on emotions as objects of argumentation and proposes a research program with that focus. Brinton 1988 proposes a more philosophically oriented and Gilbert 2004 a more communication-oriented informal logical method of analyzing and evaluating emotional appeals, Innocenti 2006 proposes a normative pragmatic one, and Walton 1992 pragma-dialectical one.

  • Brinton, Alan. 1988. Appeal to the angry emotions. Informal Logic 10:77–87.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that some emotional appeals are logically acceptable arguments. Proposes that they be evaluated by considering whether the emotion is justified by the reasons given and whether the intensity of the emotional response is appropriate given the reasons and situation.

    Find this resource:

  • Gilbert, Michael A. 2004. Emotion, argumentation and informal logic. Informal Logic 24:245–264.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Calls for attention of informal logicians to emotion. Aims to use informal logic as a basis for analyzing and evaluating emotion in argumentation. Argues that informal logical criteria of acceptability, relevance, and adequacy are applicable to evaluating emotion in argumentation.

    Find this resource:

  • Innocenti Manolescu, Beth. 2006. A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation 20:327–343.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-006-9016-9Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that emotional appeals are legitimate in argumentation and that they may be analyzed as strategies that create pragmatic reasons and assessed by the standard of formal propriety. Outlines positions on these issues from informal logical, pragma-dialectical, and rhetorical perspectives.

    Find this resource:

  • Micheli, Raphael. 2010. Emotions as objects of argumentative constructions. Argumentation 24:1–17.

    DOI: 10.1007/s10503-008-9120-0Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes to view emotions as objects of argumentation, as opposed to something to which arguers appeal. Calls for study of the attribution of emotions, evaluation, and legitimation by speakers. Proposes evaluation based on fit of emotion to individual, object, action, and discourse genre.

    Find this resource:

  • Plantin, Christian. On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation. In Emotion in dialogic interaction: Advances in the complex. Edited by Edda Weigand, 265–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that emotional appeals are inseparable from arguing. Provides topics and vocabulary for discussing emotional strategies. Emotional claims may be present as: sentences asserting or denying a particular emotional state, descriptions of signs of emotional states, descriptions of situations and contexts, and “emotional scenarios.”

    Find this resource:

  • Walton, Douglas. The place of emotion in argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1992.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Covers four emotional arguments: ad baculum, ad misericordiam, ad hominem, and ad populum. Argues that they may be reasonable if they contribute to the goals of a dialogue, such as persuasion, negotiation, or critical discussion. Covers textbook accounts of these fallacies and analyzes and evaluates clearer and more borderline cases.

    Find this resource:

LAST MODIFIED: 02/23/2011

DOI: 10.1093/OBO/9780199756841-0013

back to top

Article

Up

Down