Week 6: Group A Reading

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:

Identify three key characteristics of the rhetorical argument move as a whole. What do these concepts or notions tell us about rhetorical argument and its place in contemporary rhetorical theory?
Differentiate between formal and mechanistic theories of argument.
How does the notion of universal audience differ from Perelman's The New Rhetoric (1958) to “ The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments” (1984)?
What are “good reasons” and “reasonableness,” and how do these terms lead to additional ambiguity and highlight the contingency element of the rhetorical argument move?
How is Toulmin's model of argument different from a formal model? (Is it just a syllogism laid on its side?)
Differentiate the various projects here: Wallace, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Toulmin..What are the benefits and limitations of each paradigm? What types of problems are suitable for examination through each paradigm?
Descartes is a devil in many of these pieces. Articulate the argument. Do you buy it? Why, or why not?

Basic Readings:

* Wallace, Karl R. "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons." Quarterly Journal of Speech 49 (October 1963): 239-49.
* 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) Read pp. 31-35
* Ch. Perelman. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 1982. Read pp. 33-40.
Stephen Toulmin. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958.

Additional Reading:

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.
Cummings, Louise. "Justifying Practical Reason: What Chaim Perelman's New Rhetoric Can Learn from Frege's Attack on Psychologism." Philosophy and Rhetoric 35(1) (2002): 50-76.
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.
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): 111-28.
Zulick, Margaret D. "Generative Rhetoric and Public Argument: A Classical Approach." Argumentation and Advocacy 33 (Winter 1997): 109-19.
Tallmon, James M. "Casuistry and the Role of Rhetorical Reason in Ethical Inquiry." Philosophy and Rhetoric 28 (1995): 377-87.
* 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.
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 and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments." Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 188-196.
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.

Recent Work: (Selected by Tom Geary and Alyssa Samek)

Adler, Jonathan E. “Shedding Dialectical Tiers: A Social Epistemic View.” Argumentation 18 (2004): 279-93.
Aonuma, Satoru. “Induction and Invention: The Toulmin Model Meets Critical Rhetoric.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 11-17.
Atkin, Albert, and John E. Richardson. “Arguing About Muslims: (Un)Reasonable Argumentation in Letters to the Editor.” Text & Talk 27, no. 1 (2007): 1-25
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian . “Dealing with Enthymemes.” Critical Problems in Argumentation: Selected Papers from the 13th 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, 356-61
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. “Toulmin's Model of Argument and the Question of Relativism.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 29-38.
Bertea, Stefano. “Certainty, Reasonableness and Argumentation.” Argumentation 18 (2004): 465-78.
Boger, George. “Subordinating Truth – Is Acceptability Acceptable?” Argumentation 19, no. 2 (2005): 187-238.
Bruner, M. “Rationality, Reason and the History of Thought.” Argumentation 20, no. 2 (2006): 185-208.
Clark, Lynn . “Rhetorical Episodes in Public Controversy and the Generative Moments of Concluding: A Preliminary Engagement with Psychoanalytic Dialogue.” 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, 94-101.
Combs, Steven C. “The Dao of Argumentation.” 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, 109-16.
Crick, Nathan. “Conquering Our Imagination: Though Experiments and Enthymemes in Scientific Argument.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 37(1) (2004): 21-41.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser. “Kinship: The Relationship Between Johnstone's Ideas about Philosophical Argument and the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. ” Philosophy & Rhetoric 40, no. 1 (2007): 51-70.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Peter Houtlosser. “More about an Arranged Marriage.” 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, 345-55.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Peter Houtlosser. “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation 20, no. 4 (2006): 381-392.
Feteris, Eveline. “The Rational Reconstruction of Complex Forms of Legal Argumentation: Approaches from Artificial Intelligence and Law and Pragma-Dialectics. ” Argumentation 19, no. 4 (2005): 393-400.
Frank, David A. “Argumentation Studies in the Wake of the New Rhetoric.” Argumentation and Advocacy 40 (Spring 2004): 267-83.
Frank, David A. “A Traumatic Reading of Twentieth-Century Rhetorical Theory: The Belgian Holocaust, Malines , Perelman, and de Man.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93, no. 3 (August 2007): 308-343.
Freeman, James. “Systematizing Toulmin's Warrants: An Epistemic Approach.” Argumentation 19, no. 3 (2005): 331-346.
Govier, Trudy. “Truth and Storytelling: Some Hidden Arguments.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 167-175.
Graff, Richard, and Wendy Winn. “Presencing ‘Communion' in Chaïm Perelman's New Rhetoric.” Philosophy & Rhetoric 39, no. 1 (2006): 45-71.
Greene, Ronald Walter. “The Aesthetic Turn and the Value of Labor: Re-thinking Citizenship for a Global Economy.” 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, 144-50.
Grootendorst, Rob and Frans H. van Eemeren. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: the Pragma-dialectical Approach . New York : Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Gross, Alan G. “Presence as Argument in the Public Sphere.” RSQ: Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35, no. 2 (Spring 2005): 5-21.
Hahn, Ulrike, and Mike Oaksford. “The Burden of Proof and Its Role in Argumentation.” Argumentation 21, no. 1 (March 2007): 39-61.
Harsin, Jayson. “Avant-Garde Art/argument, Spectacular Art/argument: The Challenge to the Challenge of Avant-Garde Argument.” 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, 136-43.
Hicks, Darrin. “The Coagulation of Sentiment: Redrawing the Border between Reasonableness and Common Sense.” 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, 130-35.
Hitchcock, David. “Good Reasoning and the Toulmin Model.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 199-208.
Hitchcock, David, and Bart Verheij, eds. Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht , Netherlands : Springer, 2006.
Hitchcock, David, and Bart Verheij. “The Toulmin Model Today: Introduction to the Special Issue on Contemporary Work Using Stephen Edelston Toulmin's Layout of Arguments.” Argumentation 19, no. 3 (2005): 255-258.
Hoerl, Kristen E. “Public Argumentation as Self-Preservation: A Critique of Argumentation Theory as a Democratic Practice.” 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, 166-72.
Ietcu , Isabela. “Argumentation, Dialogue and Conflicting Moral Economies in Post-1989 Romania: An argument Against the Trade Union Movement. Discourse & Society 17, no. 5 (Sept. 2006): 627-650.
Jacobs, Scott. “Nonfallacious Rhetorical Strategies: Lyndon Johnson's Daisy Ad.” Argumentation 20, no. 4 (2006): 421-442.
Jacobs, Scott. “Two Models of the Rational Conditions for Disagreement in Argumentative Dialogue.” 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, 362-69.
Katsav, J. and Chris A. Reed. “On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments.” Argumentation 18 (2004): 465-78.
Keith, William. “The Toulmin Model and Non-monotonic Reasoning.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 243-251.
* Klumpp, James F. “Warranting Arguments, the Virtue of Verb.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 260-268.
Kosck, Christian. “Types of Warrant in Practical Reasoning.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 269-278.
Laar, J. “Don't say that!” Argumentation 20, no. 4 (2006): 495-510.
Lloyd, Keith S. “An Alternative Use of the Uses of Argument : A Feminist/Perspective Adaptation of the Toulmin Model.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 316-325.
Lloyd, Keith S. “Rethinking Rhetoric from an Indian Perspective: Implications in the Nyaya Sutra.” Rhetoric Review 26, no. 4 (2007): 365-384.
Manolescu, Beth Innocenti . “A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation. ” Argumentation 20, no. 3 (2006): 327-343.
Manolescu, Beth Innocenti. “Norms of Representational Force.” Argumentation and Advocacy 41 (Winter 2005): 139-51.
Nelson, John S. “Voice and Music in Political Telespots: Emotions as Reason in Public Arguments.” 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, 230-37.
Nienkamp, Jean. “The Hidden Role of Pathos in Toulmin's Layout of Argument.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 346-355.
Oaksford, Mike, and Ulrike Hahn. “Non-monotonicity and Informal Reasoning: Comment on Ferguson (2003).” Argumentation 20, no. 2 (2006): 245-251.
Oswald, Steve. “Towards an Interface Between Pragma-Dialectics and Relevance Theory. ” Pragmatics & Cognition 15, no. 1 (2007): 179-201.
Pickett, James R. “The Whole World is Shopping: Global Exchange's Moral Argument in the Globalization Debates. 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, 395-400.
Reed, Chris and Glenn Rowe. “Toulmin Diagrams in Theory & Practice: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 373-382.
Rees, M. “Dialectical Soundness of Dissociation.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 383-392.
Rees, M. “Strategic Maneuvering with Dissociation.” Argumentation 20, no. 4 (2006): 473-487.
Richardson, John, and Albert Atkin. “‘You're Being Unreasonable': Prior and Passing Theories of Critical Discussion. ” Argumentation 20, no. 2 (2006): 149-166.
Rubinelli, Sara, and Peter J. Schulz. “‘Let Me Tell You Why!' When Argumentation in Doctor–Patient Interaction Makes a Difference. ” Argumentation 20, no. 3 (2006): 353-375.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca. “What's in a Name? The Use of the Stylistic Device Metonymy as a Strategic Manoeuvre in the Confrontation and Argumentation Stage of a Discussion.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 433-441.
Stroud, Scott R. “Narrative as Argument in Indian Philosophy: The Astavakra Gita as Multivalent Narrative.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 37(1) (2004): 42-71.
Sullivan, Robert G. “Pre-Aristotelian Theories of Argument: Isocratean Vocabulary and Practice.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University , 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 452-460.
Suzuki, Takeshi and Aya Niitsuma. “Argumentative Analysis of President Bush's War Against Terrorism after 9/11.” 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, 87-93.
Tindale, Christopher. “Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise .” Argumentation 20, no. 4 (2006): 447-466.
Turnbull, Nick. “Rhetorical Agency as a Property of Questioning.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 37(3) (2004): 207-222.
Van Rees, M.A. “Dialectical Soundness of Dissociation.” The Uses of Argument: Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18-21 May 2005 . Ed. David Hitchcock. Hamilton : Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, 2005, 383-392.
Zarefsky, David. “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhetoric. ” Argumentation 20, no.4 (2006): 399-416.
Zulick, Margaret. “Dialectic, Analytic and Rhetoric: Between Norms and Phenomena.” 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, 526-36.

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.

Questions to stimulate thought:

What are the perils of reletavism? How does the epistemic move address and respond to these critiques? (Re: Scott's 1976 piece).
The nomenclature of this move has been much debated. (Scott, at one point, indicated some regret about using the word "epistemic.") What about the focus on rhetoric? Does that term constrain the move in some ways? If so, how? Is there another term that would be more appropriate? How does social knowledge differ from previous concepts of knowledge?
In the Quarterly Journal of Speech 's 1990 forum on "The Reported Demise of Epistemic Rhetoric," Brummett charges "Apply or die" (71). How would you apply rhetoric as epistemic? And should rhetoric as epistemic even be made into a method?
Although we are stepping back and critiquing this move, we all exist within these "ways of knowing," right? (Is it possible that we could exist outside rhetoric or outside of knowledge?) Are we implicated by this move and/or obligated to act? If so, what are we called on to do as rhetorical practitioners? And are there limits to our potential for reflexivity? (Klumpp's Alta keynote relates to such demads.)
Scott's first article on this topic appeared in 1967; thus, if we date the move to this text's appearance, the move is at least forty years old. Clearly, the world we operate in now has changed in some significant ways since that Scott publication. Are there contemporary situational exigencies that the movement is not responding to? (Keep in mind that these "situational exigencies" can be as diverse as material events, changes to mediums, or new "ways of thinking," knowing, or theorizing.)
One of the calls in the movement is to spread rhetoric beyond the communication discipline so that all departments within the academy recognize their own rhetoricity, but if rhetoric goes everywhere, is it nowhere? What happens to OUR IDENTITY (!!!) if everyone is "doing rhetoric"? Is this a legitimate concern or territorialism?

Basic Readings:

* 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): 73-91.
Farrell, Thomas B. "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory." Quarterly Journal of Speech. 62 (February 1976): 1-14.
Lyne, John. "Rhetorics of Inquiry." Quarterly Journal of Speech 71 (February 1985): 65-73.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 1996. Original ed. 1962.

Additional Reading:

* 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; Cherwitz and Hikins; Scott
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.
Horne, Janet S. "Rorty's Circumvention of Argument: Redescribing Rhetoric." Southern Communication Journal 58 (Spring 1993): 169-181.
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): 71-76.
Nye, D. E. (1997). Narratives and Spaces: Technology and the Construction of American Culture . New York : Columbia University Press.
Railsback, C. C. (1983). Beyond Rhetorical Relativism: A Structural-Material Model of Truth and Objective Reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 69, 351-363.
Wander, P. C. & Jaehne, D. (2000). Prospects for “a Rhetoric of Science.” Social Epistemology , 14, 211-233.
* Scott, Robert L. "On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic: Ten Years Later." Central States Speech Journal 27 (1976): 258-266.
Ayotte, Kevin, Poulakos, John, and Steve Whitson. "Mistaking Nietzsche: Rhetoric and the Epistemic Pest." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (2002): 121-27.
Toulmin, Stephen. Human Understanding, Vol 1: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts. Princeton: Princeton Univ Press, 1972.

Recent Work (Selected by Heather Adams and Terri Donofrio):

Adler, Jonathan E. "Shedding Dialectical Tiers: A Social Epistemic View." Argumentation 18, no. 3 (2004): 279-293.
Banning, Marlia "Truth Floats: Reflexivity in the Shifting Public and Epistemological Terrain ." Rhetoric Society Quarterly 35, no. 3 (2005): 75-99.
Bishop, Ryan and John Phillips. "The Knowledge Apparatus. " Theory, Culture & Society , 23, no. 2/3 (2006): 186-191.
Collier, James H. "Reclaiming Rhetoric of Science and Technology: Knowing In and About the World." Technical Communication Quarterly 14, no. 3 (2005): 295-302.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. "Rhetoric of Science: Enriching the Discipline." Technical Communication Quarterly 14, no. 3 (2005): 277-286.
Freeman, James B. " Systematizing Toulmin's Warrants: An Epistemic Approach. " Argumentation 19, no. 3 (2005): 331-346.
Fricker, Miranda. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing . New York : Oxford University Press, 2007.
Fuller, Steve. "The Globalization of Rhetoric and Its Discontents." POROI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention 2, no. 2 (2003), http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/papers/fuller031101_outline.html
Hicks, Darren. "Reasonableness: Political not Epistemic." 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, 2002,104-112.
Isager, Christine and Sine Nørholm Just "Rhetoricians Identified: A Call to Interdisciplinary Action and How it Resonated in the Field of Rhetoric ;" Basbøll, Thomas , " Configuring the Usage: The Social Epistemologist as a Postmodern Grammarian ;" Collier, James H. Social Epistemologists at the Crossroads: Authorizing Agents of Change;" Fuller, Steve, "On Being Buried with Praise: A Response to Critics;" Philosophy & Rhetoric 38 no. 3 (2005):, 248-280.
Kauffeld, Fred J. "The Priority of Normative Interests in Argumentation Theory." 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, 24-31.
* Klumpp, James F. "Facts, Truth, 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.
Littlefield, Robert S. " Beyond Education vs. Competition: On Viewing Forensics as Epistemic." Forensic 91, no. 2 (2006): 3-15.
Lyne, John. "Science Controversy, Common Sense, and the Third Culture." Argumentation & Advocacy 42, no. 1 (2005): 38-42.
Nelson, John S. "Emotions as Reasons in Public Arguments." POROI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention 4, no. 1 (2005), http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/papers/nelson050401_outline.html.
Nelson, John S. "Rhetoric and Its Discontents." POROI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention 2, no. 2 (2003), http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/papers/nelson031201.html.
Palczewski, Catherine Helen. "Argument in an Off Key: Playing with the Productive Limits of Argument." 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, 1-23.
Rufo, Kenneth. "Rhetoric and Power; Rethinking and Relinking." Argumentation and Advocacy 40, no. 2 (2003): 65-84.
Schiappa, Edward. "Second Thoughts on the Critiques of Big Rhetoric." Philosophy and Rhetoric 34, no. 3 (2001): 260-274.
Simons, Herbert W. "The Globalization of Rhetoric and the Argument from Disciplinary Consequence." POROI: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Rhetorical Analysis and Invention 2, no. 2 (2003), http://inpress.lib.uiowa.edu/poroi/papers/simons031101_outline.html
Venn, Couze. "A Note on Knowledge. " Theory, Culture & Society 23, nos. 2/3 (2006): 191-193.
Werry, Chris. "Reflections on Language: Chomsky, Linguistic Discourse and the Value of Rhetorical Self-Consciousness." Language Sciences 29, no. 1 (2007): 66-87.

Return to the COMM 652 Home Page