Week 5: Group A
Preparation Guide 2012
The Rhetorical Argument Move
One of the earliest problems addressed by contemporary theorizers was the exclusion of argument
from rhetoric. This traces back to the Ramist and Port Royalist's division of invention (assigned
to dialectic) from rhetoric. In the twentieth century this influence remained in the teaching of
formal logic as practical logic. The theorists working on this problem worked to attack this
interpretation of practical reasoning. Their problem was to construct an alternative model for
practical reasoning based in rhetoric.
With an infrastructure of conferences and journals supporting this work, this has been one of the most active of the pursuits in contemporary rhetorical theory.
Clusters: Mechanistic argument; Field theory; Narrative argument; Good reasons, Informal logic, Pragma-dialectics..
Questions to stimulate thought:
- How do you define reason? How would Toulmin define reason? Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca?
- Are there different approaches to the role of the audience in rhetorical argument? If so, what are they?
- Are there different approaches to evaluating the strength of an argument? If so, what different approaches do the readings reveal?
- Is the rhetorical argument move still preoccupied with separating itself from/defending itself against formal logic?
- Which of the writers you read would a philosopher invite to dinner?
- Wallace, Karl R. "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons." Quarterly
Journal of Speech 49 (October 1963): 239-49. (CMMC)
- * Foss, Foss, and Trapp on Perelman and Toulmin.
- * Fisher, Walter R. "Technical Logic, Rhetorical Logic, and Narrative Rationality." Argumentation 1 (1987): 3-21.
- Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1969. (original edition 1958)
- Ch. Perelman. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1982.
- Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
- Blair, J. Anthony. “A Time for Argument Theory Integration.” Critical Problems in Argumentation: Selected Papers from the 13 th Biennial Conference on Argumentation Sponsored by the American Forensic Association and National Communication Association, August, 2003. Ed. Charles Arthur Willard. Washington , D.C. : National Communication Association, 2005, 337-44.
- Frank, David A. "The New Rhetoric, Judaism, and Post-Enlightenment Thought:
The Cultural Origins of Perelmanian Philosophy." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 83 (August 1997): 311-31.
- Goodnight, G. Thomas, ed. Special Issue on Visual Argument. Argumentation
and Advocacy 33 (Summer 1996): 1-39.
- Grootendorst, R. & F. H. van Eemeren. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
- Klumpp, J. F. (2009a). Argumentative ecology. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45, 183-197.
- Klumpp, J. F. (2005). Warranting arguments, the virtue of verb. In Hitchcock, D. (Ed.), The Uses of Argument. Hamilton, ON: OSSA.
- Parson, Donn, ed. Special Issue: Dramatism and Argument. Argumentation
and Advocacy 29 (Spring 1993): 145-203. Including James F. Klumpp. "A
Rapprochement Between Dramatism and Argument.", 148-63.
- * Perelman, Chaim. "The New Rhetoric: A Theory of Practical Reasoning." In The Great Ideas Today. Publ. William Benton. Trans. E. Griffin Collart and O. Bird. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 1970: 281-297.
- Perelman, Chaim. "The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 188-196.
- Prosise, Theodore O., Jordan P. Mills, and Greg R. Miller. "Fields as Arenas
of Practical Discursive Struggle: Argument Fields and Pierre Bourdieu's Theory
of Social Practice." Argumentation and Advocacy 32 (Winter 1996):
- Rowland, Robert C. "In Defense of Rational Argument: A Pragmatic Justification
of Argumentation Theory and Response to the Postmodern Critique." Philosophy
and Rhetoric 28 (1995): 350-64.
- Schiappa, Edward. "Sophisticated Modernism and the Continuing Importance of Argument Evaluation." Arguing Communication and Culture: Proceedings of the Twelfth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Alta, August 2001 . Ed. G. Thomas Goodnight. Washington , D.C. : National Communication Association, 2002, 51-58.
- Tallmon, James M. "Casuistry and the Role of Rhetorical Reason in Ethical
Inquiry." Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (1995): 377-87.
- Zulick, Margaret D. "Generative Rhetoric and Public Argument: A Classical
Approach." Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (Winter 1997): 109-19.
Recent Work: (Selected by Jessica Lu, Annie Laurie Nichols, and Harry O'Hara )
- Balthrop, V. William. “Ah, the Irony of It All: Parson, Trope, and Argumentation.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 254-261. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- Bermejo-Luque, Lillian. “Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values of Argumentation: The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation.” Argumentation 24 (2010): 453-474.
- Bermejo-Luque, Lillian. “A Unitary Schema for Arguments by Analogy.” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 1-24.
- Blair, J. Anthony. “Argumentation as Rational Persuasion.” Argumentation 26 (2012): 71-81.
- Blair, J. Anthony. “Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic as Related to Argument.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 45 (2012): 148-164.
- Blair, J. Anthony and Christopher W. Tindale. Groundwork in the Theory of Argumentation: Selected Papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer, 2012.
- Bruschke, Jon. “A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification.” Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2011): 191-194.
- Ciurria, Michelle. “Critical Thinking in Moral Argumentation Contexts: A Virtue Ethical Approach.” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 242-258.
- Combs, Steven C. “Audience Temperament Adaptation Theory: Applications to and Implications for Argumentation Theory and Practice.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 70-77. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- Crosswhite, James. “Universalities.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (2010): 430-448.
- Duncan, Mike. “The Curious Silence of the Dog and Paul of Tarsus: Revisiting The Argument from Silence.” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 83-97.
- Gage, John T. (ed.). The Promise of Reason: Studies in the New Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2011.
- Greene, Ronald Walter, and Heather Ashley Hayes. “Rhetorical Materialism: The Cognitive Division of Labor and the Social Dimensions of Argument.” Argumentation & Advocacy 48 (2012): 190-193.
- Frank, David A., and Michelle Bolduc.” Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 96 (2010): 141-163.
- Groarke, Leo. “Should Mercier and Sperber Change the Way We Teach and Study Reasoning?” Argumentation & Advocacy 48 (2012): 188-190.
- Gronbeck, Bruce E. “Theories of Presumption in Western Argumentation: Social Realism, Legal Axiology, and Psychological Uptake.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 284-292. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- Hamby, Benjamin. “Toulmin’s ‘Analytic Arguments.’” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 116-131.
- Hamby, Benjamin. “What a Real Argument Is.” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 313-326.
- Harris, Scott L. “Finding Argument in a Parsonian Garden.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 262-269. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- Klumpp, James F. “The Parsonian School.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 270-277. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- * Klumpp, James F. “Rhetorical Argument.” In Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies, edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, 17-30. New York: Springer, 2012.
- Kvernbekk, Tone. “Argumentation in Theory and Practice: Gap or Equilibrium?” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 288-305.
- Krueger, Ben. “Toward a Culturally Materialist Theory of Argument Spheres.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 172-180. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
- Majdik, Zoltan P., and William M. Keith. “Expertise as Argument: Authority, Democracy, and Problem-Solving.” Argumentation 25 (2011): 371-384.
- Mercier, Hugo. “Some Clarifications about the Argumentative Theory of Reasonings: A Reply to Santibanez Yanez.” Informal Logic 32 (2012): 259-268.
- Nails, Deborah. “Plato’s Republic in its Athenian Context.” History of Political Thought 33 (2012): 1-23.
- Nettel, Ana Laura, and Georges Roque. “Special Issue: Persuasion and Argumentation.” Argumentation 26 (2012): 1-170.
- Thagard, Paul. “Critical Thinking and Informal Logic: Neuropsychological Perspectives.” Informal Logic 31 (2011): 152-170.
- Tindale, C. W. Reason’s Dark Champions: Constructive Strategies of Sophistic Argument. Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press, 2010.
- Tindale, C. W. “Ways of Being Reasonable: Perelman and the Philosophers.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (2010): 337-361.
- van Eemeren, Frans H. Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2010.
- van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen. Exploring Argumentative Contexts. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2012.
- van Eemeren, Frans H., and Bart Garssen (eds.). Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies. New York: Springer, 2012. van Eemeren, Frans H., Bart Garssen, and Jean H. M. Wagemans. “The Pragma-Dialectical Method of Analysis and Evaluation.” In Reasoned Argument and Social Change, edited by Robert C. Rowland, 25-47. Washington, DC: National Communication Association, 2011.
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page
The Epistemic Move
Once argument was torn loose from its position as an inferior derivation of formal logic, the
implications of that change began to be traced. Robert L. Scott posited that if rhetorical and
scientific logic were different then there must be a rhetorical way of knowing. The epistemic
work sought to trace down the implication of practical reasoning on human knowledge.
Clusters: Social Knowledge; Social Epistemics, Rhetoric of Science, Rhetoric of Inquiry.
Preparing for Class:
1. We want to use three clusters instead of four, grouping social epistemics and social epistemology together. Read the following definitions:
- The social epistemic perspective focuses on how society constructs knowledge using rhetoric. Social epistemology is the study of the social dimensions of knowledge or information. We create knowledge through discourses with others, and that knowledge creates logic, which then helps us use rhetoric better, etc.
- From McCloskey, et. al., Rhetoric of Inquiry rests on two assertions: It maintains that argument is more unified than is commonly understood, and far more unified than the fragmentation of academic fields might imply. Everyone uses common rhetorical devices (metaphors, invocations of authority, appeals to audiences), but rhetoric is also more diverse than previously understood. Thus it encourages methodology to become comparative, situating itself in actual researches and exploring their mutual implications for better inquiry. Accordingly, rhetoric of inquiry does not seek to be a subject unto itself or an authority over other investigations. Fields properly divide into separate conversations with distinct dialects. Nonetheless, they share the grammar of our civilization more than they know. Rhetoric of inquiry makes us more widely aware of this, making the arts and sciences more intelligible to themselves and to others. These are parts of a common rhetoric of scholarly inquiry. It creates languages for talking about what we have in common and for understanding why we do not-and cannot-have everything in common, Rhetoric of inquiry is a way of conversing about intellectual conversation-and improving its quality.
- The rhetoric of science (Outline in the original Scott), recognizes that even quantoid scientists use rhetoric when arguing about their observations. Philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, calls into question the whole idea of a unified and growing body of scientific knowledge, which is created incrementally over time as researchers employ the scientific method. Rather, Kuhn says that scientists also work under epistemes called "paradigms", where only certain theories and experiments are allowed by the powers in control (the accepted scientific authorities of the era). Kuhn says that new knowledge comes by "revolution" when an "anomaly" (something that cannot be explained by the current paradigm) becomes so pronounced that it can no longer be ignored. Others have found the rhetoric of science fruitful for linking rhetorical theory to practical applications and analyses of scientific issues and controversies (such as global warming).
2. After reading, do you agree with these definitions? Do you disagree with any of them?
3. Find passages/phrases/examples from the reading for each cluster. Note the passage and page number. These passages are “Ah ha” moments that helped you clarify the meaning of the cluster.
- * Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as
Epistemic." Central States Speech Journal 18 (February 1967): 9-17.
- Leff, Michael. "In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of the Recent Literature
on Rhetorical Theory." Central States Speech Journal 29 (Summer 1978):
- Farrell, Thomas B. "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory." Quarterly
Journal of Speech. 62 (February 1976): 1-14. (CMMC)
- Lyne, John. "Rhetorics of Inquiry." Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (February 1985): 65-73. (CMMC)
- Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed.
Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1996. Original ed. 1962.
- Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.
- * Aikin, Scott F. “Three Objections to the Epistemic Theory of Argument Rebutted.” Argumentation and Advocacy 44, no. 3 (2008): 130-142.
- * Atkins, Leslie J. "The Roles of Evidence in Scientific Argument." AIP Conference Proceedings 1064, no. 1 (October 2008): 63-66.
- Ayotte, Kevin, Poulakos, John, and Steve Whitson. "Mistaking Nietzsche: Rhetoric and the Epistemic Pest." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (2002): 121-27.
- Banning, Marlia "Truth Floats: Reflexivity in the Shifting Public and Epistemological Terrain ." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2005): 75-99.
- * Brummett, Barry; Richard A. Cherwitz and James W. Hikins; Thomas B. Farrell.
"Forum: The Reported Demise of Epistemic Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal
of Speech 76 (February 1990): 69-84. Responses: Robert L. Scott; Alan
G. Gross. Quarterly Journal of Speech 76 (August 1990): 300-306. Read Brummett, Gross, and Scott. (CMMC)
- Cherwitz, Richard A., and James W. Hikins. "Climbing the Academic Ladder: A Critique of Provincialism in Contemporary Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 86 (November 2000): 375-85. Schiappa, Edward, Alan G. Gross, Raymie E. McKerrow, and Robert L. Scott. "Rhetorical Studes as Reduction or Redescription? A Response to Cherwitz and Hikins." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (February 2002): 112-20.
- Fuller, S. (2002). Social Epistemology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
- Horne, Janet S. "Rorty's Circumvention of Argument: Redescribing Rhetoric."
Southern Communication Journal 58 (Spring 1993): 169-181.
- Horne, Janet S. Rhetoric after Rorty. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53 (Summer 1989) 247-259.
- * Jacobson, Nora. "Social Epistemology." Science Communication 29, no. 1 (2007): 116-127.
- *Klumpp, James F. "When Foundations Fail: Argument without Institutions of Fact." Plenary Address. Wake Forest Conference on Argumentation, Boca Ratan FL, February 2006. (For further reading on institutions of fact, see James F. Klumpp, “Facts, Truths, and Iraq: A Call to Stewardship of Democratic Argument,” In Engaging Argument: Selected Papers from the 2005 NCA/AFA Summer Conference on Argumentation, edited by Patricia Riley, 1-17. Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association, 2006.)
- Livnat, Zohar. “The Concept of Scientific Fact: Perelman and Beyond.” Argumentation 23, no. 3 (2009): 375-386.
- McCloskey, Donald M., Allan Megill, and John S. Nelson, "Rhetoric of Inquiry." in John S. Nelson, Allan Megill, and Donald M. McCloskey, eds. The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. University of Wisconsin Press, 1987. 3-18.
- Railsback, C. C. (1983). Beyond Rhetorical Relativism: A Structural-Material Model of Truth and Objective Reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 69, 351-363.
- Schiappa, Edward. "Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric 34, no. 3 (2001): 260-274.
- Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric
as Epistemic: Ten Years Later." Central States Speech Journal
27 (1976): 258-266.
- Toulmin, Stephen. Human Understanding, Vol 1: The Collective Use and
Evolution of Concepts. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press, 1972.
- Whitson, Steve, and John Poulakos. "Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Rhetoric." Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (May 1993): 131-45. Response: Douglas
Thomas. "Forum: Reflections on a Nietzschean Turn in Rhetorical Theory: Rhetoric
without Epistemology?" Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (February 1994):
Recent Work (Selected by Megan Callow, Kim Hannah, and Thomas McCloskey):
- Crick, N. & Gabriel, J. (2010). The conduit between Lifeworld and System: Habermas and the rhetoric of public scientific controversies. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40 (3), 201-223
- Dimpal, J. & Turner, C. (2012). Purple is to Lavender: Womanism, Resistance, and the Politics of Naming. Negro educational review 62-63 (1-4), 67-88.
- Ettlinger, N. (2011). Governmentality as Epistemology. Annals-Association of American Geogrophers, 101 (3), 537-560.
- Grimm, S.R. (2011). On Intellectualism in Epistemology. Mind, 120 (479), 705-733.
- Hook, D., Franks, B., & Bauer, M.W. (2011). The social psychology of communication. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Kinzel, K. (2011). Models of Historical Epistemology. Metascience 20 (3), 483-486.
- Kitcher, P. (2011). Epistemology Without History is Blind. Erkenntnis, 75 (3), 505-524.
- Kotzee, B. (2011). Education and ‘Thick’ Epistemology. Educational Theory 61 (5), 549-564.
- Kowalenko, R. (2012). The Epistemology of Hedged Laws. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42 (3), 445-452.
- Lövbrand, E., Pielke Jr., R., & Beck, S. (2011). A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Values 36 (4), 474-496.
- McAra, C. (2011). Surrealism as Epistemology. Art History-Oxford 34 (1), 214-218.
- Mehta, A., Madjik, Z.P. & Platt, C.A. (2012). Controversy, Conflict, and Conflicting Expertises: Report from the 2011 ARST Pre-Conference at NCA. POROI, 8 (1), 1-4.
- Michaelian, K. (2011). The Epistemology of Forgetting. Erkenntnis, 75 (4), 399-424.
- Schwartzman, R., Ross, D.G. & Berube, D. Rhetoric and Risk. (2011). POROI, 11 (1), 1-9.
- Stroud, B. (2011). Epistemology, the History of Epistemology, Historical Epistemology. Erkenntnis, 75 (3), 495-503.
- Warnick, B. (2011). Empiricism, securement, and The New Rhetoric. In J.T. Gage (Ed.), The promise of reason: Studies in The New Rhetoric (pp. 21-28). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Return to the COMM 652 Home Page