It is normative. Earlyst-century research both by 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. 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 International Society for the Study of Argumentation 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. Empirical testing of pragma-dialectical rules is reported in van Eemeren, et al. Argumentative polylogues in a dialectical framework: A methodological inquiry.
Argumentation Inquires into how to analyze and evaluate multiparty argumentation. Overviews approaches and shortcomings of some basic rhetorical- and informal-logic models. Focuses mainly on shortcomings of dialectical models that assume dyadic relations between protagonist and antagonist. Explains how multiparty dialogue can complicate that basic description of relations.
Mohammed, Dima. 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. Examining argumentation in context: Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Comprises research from different perspectives and contexts of argumentation. Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules.
Logic in Islamic philosophy
Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. 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, and conclusion. Overall, results confirm that ordinary arguers regard pragma-dialectical fallacies as unreasonable moves.
Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 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.
A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. 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. Reconstructing argumentative discourse. 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.
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. Blair provides an overview. Hamblin takes issue with the standard formal logical treatment of fallacies, and Johnson adds a dialectical tier to evaluation.
Walton advances a dialogue theory for analysis and evaluation. Govier and Walton provide good introductions to major issues, and Finocchiaro and Pinto reflect the philosophical thinking that orients researchers working in informal logic. Blair, J. What is informal logic? In Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory.
Edited by Frans H. A concise introduction to the historical background of informal logic, and tools for analysis and evaluation. Finocchiaro, Maurice A. Arguments about arguments: Systematic, critical, and historical essays in logical theory. New York: Cambridge Univ.
An annotation scheme for Rhetorical Figures
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. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. 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. Hamblin, C. Canonical and frequently cited; reprinted in Covers historical treatments of fallacies from Aristotle onward 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.
Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Presents a theory of argument grounded in informal logic; 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. Argument, inference and dialectic: Collected papers on informal logic. 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. Walton, Douglas N. The new dialectic: Conversational context of argument. Toronto Studies in Philosophy. Toronto: Univ. Describes dialogue theory as a foundation for informal logic. Outlines normative models of dialogues, including persuasion, inquiry, negotiation, and deliberation.
Covers dialogue shifts that may occur in an argumentative exchange, and how to evaluate them. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Introduction to critical methods for evaluating arguments. Assumes that 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.
Rhetorical Students of rhetoric initially studied argumentation as part of university programs on speech and debate and began to perform research in argumentation as speech became a research area and scholarly discipline. Rhetorical theories of argumentation feature context and audience and aim to specify ends that are not merely relative to a specific context and audience. For example, Toulmin advances a mode of analysis with attention to context or field, and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca holds that the merits of an argument depend on the audience. For example, for Goodwin , speakers design arguments to induce even-reluctant addressees to act; likewise, Kock defines rhetorical argumentation not as persuasion but in terms of a domain: choice of action.
Zarefsky is a paradigm case of a political, practical approach to argumentation, and essays in Johnson and Tindale and Tindale illustrate philosophical approaches to rhetorical issues in argumentation. Palmieri and Mazzali-Lurati addresses situations involving multiple audiences, and Kjeldsen calls for the use of social-scientific research methods to study audience reception of arguments.
Henry Johnstone, Jr. Tindale, eds. Introduction and nine essays on rhetoric and argumentation oriented toward philosophy and informal logic. Essay topics include norms of argumentation, argumentation and persuasion, and audiences of argumentation. Kjeldsen, Jens E. Studying rhetorical audiences: A call for qualitative reception studies in argumentation and rhetoric.
Makes a case for benefits of qualitative, empirical studies of audience reception. Covers foundational theories of audience in scholarship on argumentation and communication. Argues for study of how actual audiences respond to actual messages, using methods such as ethnographic participation, reception analysis, and focus group studies. Kock, Christian. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argues for a view of rhetorical argumentation that focuses not on the end of persuasion but that 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. Palmieri, Rudi, and Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati. Multiple audiences as text stakeholders: A conceptual framework for analyzing complex rhetorical situations.
About This Item
Proposes a three-part framework for analyzing argumentation designed for multiple audiences. Builds on insights from communication scholarship to generate the concept of text stakeholder. Suggests that arguers and critics can use the concept to analyze multiple audiences for a text by considering their interactional roles and interests in an issue. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation.
- Home and work : housework, wages, and the ideology of labor in the early republic.
- Cardiac PET and PET/CT Imaging.
- Temporal Logic in Specification: Altrincham, UK, April 8–10, 1987 Proceedings.
- Preserving The Dnipro River: Harmony, History, And Rehabilitation.
- Other Titles by Unknown.
Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame, IN: Univ. Canonical text in argumentation research; reprinted as recently as Covers topics including the nature of argumentation and audiences, and the nature of choice, as well as the selection and presentation of premises. Tindale, Christopher W. Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Introduces a rhetorical model of argument. Identifies shortcomings of informal logical and dialectical models. Analyzes and evaluates two cases of argumentation to illustrate the model. Covers fallacies and critiques of reason.
The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Begins with a focus on audience reception and its philosophical problems. Covers key concepts from a philosophical, audience-oriented perspective, including testimony, emotion, and agency. Best for advanced students with some background in philosophy. Toulmin, Stephen. The uses of argument. Canonical text in argumentation. Includes chapters on topics of enduring interest in argumentation research, such as argument fields, probability, and argument analysis.
- Rational Arguments – Systems Innovation.
- Organizational culture and leadership.
- Argumentation Theory And The Rhetoric Of Assent - Used Books;
- Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent.
- The Adventures of Homosexual Man and Lesbian Ladd?
- Account Options.
- The Gilded Edge;
Source of the Toulmin model, which continues to be featured in argumentation and textbooks on public speaking. Updated edition reprinted as recently as Zarefsky, David, Rhetorical perspectives on argumentation: Selected essays by David Zarefsky. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Collection of essays by Zarefsky from to Excellent resource for novices and experts in argumentation, given the range of topics covered and clarity of exposition. 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 in Meyers, et al. Researchers study argumentation in different kinds of contexts.
For example, Lee discusses arguing in an online context; Feng and Burleson , in an advice-giving context; Hample and Irions , in an interpersonal context; and Cionea, et al. Other examples of communication research that bridges that divide are Aakhus and Tracy , which explain how contextual features shape a practical activity that involves arguing, and Innocenti and Miller , which explains how speakers can design humor to create a political context for argument scrutiny.
Aakhus, Mark. Deliberation digitized: Designing disagreement space through communication-information services. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2. Explains how technology can design space for managing disagreement. Assumes that technology is not a communication conduit but takes responsibility and designs disagreement space.
Uses theories of language and social interaction. Good bibliography for sources on disagreement management. Cionea, Ioana A. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research Studies intraethnic serial arguments in Asians, African Americans, and Caucasians. Analyzes factors such as strength of ethnic identity, serial argument goals and tactics, and their effects on changes in relationship satisfaction following a serial argument. Reports findings for each group separately but notes problems with treating people with different ethnic backgrounds as a homogenous sample.
Craig, Robert T. Framing discourse as argument in appellate courtrooms: Three cases on same-sex marriage. In The functions of argument and social context. Edited by Dennis S. Gouran, 46— Analyzes frequency and functions of argument metalanguage e. Speakers use more argument metalanguage in court than in the hearing, and they frame courtroom arguments as argumentation and hearing arguments as self-expression. A key norm in courtrooms is dialectical rigor and in the legislative hearing is understanding and appreciating subjective differences. Feng, Bo, and Brant R.
The effects of argument explicitness on responses to advice in supportive interactions. Communication Research 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.
Hample, Dale, and Amanda L. Arguing to display identity. The authors claim that this may be the first collection of interpersonal arguments for the purpose of displaying identity, or reason giving, as a strategy for impression management. Innocenti, Beth, and Elizabeth Miller. The persuasive force of political humor. Journal of Communication Integrates normative pragmatics and communication design theory to account for the persuasive force of political humor.
Focuses on explaining how humor can be designed to pressure auditors to scrutinize arguments. Lee, Eun-Ju. When are strong arguments stronger than weak arguments? Deindividuation effects on message elaboration in computer-mediated communication. With brief biographical information, people processed messages more intensely, and argument strength predicted conformity behavior. Meyers, Renee A. Brashers, and Jennifer Hanner. Majority-minority influence: Identifying argumentative patterns and predicting argument-outcome links.
Argumentation Theory and the Rhetoric of Assent
Summarizes research on conversational argument. 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. Potential conflicts between normatively-responsible advocacy and successful social influence: Evidence from persuasion effects research.
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. Tracy, Karen.
Qualitative Communication Research 1. Uses qualitative methods in analyzing public hearings, aims to generate grounded practical theory GPT , and explains how context itself advances arguments. Focuses on two contextual features: formulating the controversy and structuring the hearing. Normative Pragmatics This theoretical perspective begins with a noncooperative view of argumentation and explains how strategies create grounds for reasonable action.
Analysis involves examining strategies arguers actually use. Evaluation proceeds by examining how arguers bring to bear norms of argumentation as they argue. Kauffeld details speech act theory that grounds normative pragmatic analysis. Innocenti and Jacobs distinguish normative pragmatics from other perspectives. Kauffeld analyzes proposing and accusing, and Goodwin explains how arguers design deliberative and forensic issues.
Goodwin and Goodwin explain how arguers design persuasive appeals to authority. Jacobs analyzes how images can be designed to enhance reasonable action, or not. Explains design features: put auditors in a position such that opposing will insult the speaker, and assure auditors that judgment is trustworthy. Designing issues. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 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. Accounting for the appeal to the authority of experts. Explains that appeals to authority of experts are designed to make expertise assessable, by bringing to bear a norm that it is imprudent for a nonexpert to go against the expert view and by generating visibility and accountability.
Synthesizes relevant scholarship in argumentation studies as well as in studies in expertise and experience. Innocenti, Beth. A normative pragmatic model of making fear appeals. Argues that fear appeals generate persuasive force by making manifest that the speaker has made a responsible assessment of the potential for fearful outcomes and how to address them. Explains benefits of a normative pragmatic model with respect to the extended parallel process model, classical model, and logical model.
Jacobs, Scott. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. 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. 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 the key question regarding fallacies is whether or not the strategy degrades the quality of disputation relative to what it might have been. Kauffeld, Fred J. Presumptions and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing.
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 to respond to an accusation. A technical discussion of speech act theory that grounds normative pragmatic analysis. Fallacies Modern fallacy theory began with Hamblin and its call for an alternative to formal logic.
Walton covers a broad range of fallacies in an accessible manner. Douglas Walton 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 offers an accessible introduction to historical sources and issues involved in developing a general fallacy theory and treating specific ones. Van Eemeren and Grootendorst covers the pragma-dialectical view of fallacies as violation of rules for a critical discussion. Cummings , Goodwin , and Jacobs show ways of considering audience and context in analyzing and evaluating fallacies.
Cummings, Louise. Informal fallacies as cognitive heuristics in public health reasoning. Examines what reasoning strategies the general public uses to assess public health issues in contexts of pervasive uncertainty. Redescribes informal-logic fallacies as cognitive heuristics to guide nonexpert deliberation about complex matters. Focuses on arguments from ignorance and arguments from authority.
Reports results of an empirical study showing that nonexperts use them as heuristics to form judgments. 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. London: Methuen. Canonical text in the study of fallacies.
Explains limits of formal logic and proposes as an alternative evaluating arguments in a dialectical context. Fallacies: Classical and contemporary readings. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Includes historical sources such as Aristotle, Richard Whately, and J. 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. Employing and exploiting the presumptions of communication in argumentation: An application of normative pragmatics. His communicationist perspective provides the author an excellent vantage point from which he lays siege to earlier rationalist and formalist approaches.
By using ThoughtCo, you accept our.