Abstract
Recent work by (Ralph Johnson (1998, 2000, 2001) has made the question of arguers’ obligations an important one on the agenda of argumentation theory. I first heard Johnson address that topic when I responded to the paper he presented at the conference on Argumentation and Rhetoric sponsored by the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) in May, 1997 (Johnson, 1998; Wenzel, 1998). In that paper Johnson discussed some differences he perceived in the approaches of logic and rhetoric to the demands of argumentation. One important difference, he claimed, is that logic requires that, in addition to the main argument in support of one’s claim or position, the “illative core” as he calls it, the arguer must also construct a “dialectical tier.” The dialectical tier would consist of the arguer’s replies to “dialectical stuff” that has come to cluster around the argument; such dialectical material would include objections, criticisms and alternative positions. The telos of rational persuasion demands the dialectical tier, not only because the audience addressed may be aware of criticisms of and objections to the arguer’s position, but also because ignoring them would not be fully rational, even when the objections and criticisms may be unknown to the immediate audience or interlocutor. Without the dialectical tier, an argument would fail to meet the requirement Johnson calls manifest rationality. Like a judge who must avoid even the appearance of partiality while administering justice, “arguers are under a similar constraint in argumentative space, where rationality must not only be done, but it must be seen to be done, and where anything that compromises the appearance of rationality must be avoided” (1998, 4).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Blair, J.A. & Johnson, R.H. (1987). Argument as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41–56.
Conley, T.M. (1990). Rhetoric in the European Tradition. New York: Longman.
Freeley, A.J. (1990). Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Goodnight, G.T. (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.
Govier, T. (1998). Arguing forever, or: Two tiers of argument appraisal. In H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale & A.V. Coleman (Eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. (CD-ROM), Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Johnson, R.H. (1998, May). Argumentative space: Logical and rhetorical approaches. In H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale & A.V. Coleman (Eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. (CD-ROM), Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Johnson, R.H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Johnson, R.H. (2001, May). More on arguers and their dialectical obligations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario.
Konishi, T. (2001). A generalized stasis theory and arguers’ dialectical obligations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, Windsor, Ontario.
Leff, M. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic in the twenty-first century. Argumentation, 14, 241–254.
Rieke, R.D. & Sillars, M.O. (1997). Argumentation and Critical Decision Making (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
Warnick, B. & Inch, E.S. (1994). Critical Thinking and Communication: The Use of Reason in Argument (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Weaver, R.M. (1953). The Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.
Wenzel, J. W. (1990). Three perspectives on argument: Rhetoric, dialectic, logic. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 9–26). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Wenzel, J.W. (1998). The rhetoric of argumentation: A rejoinder. In H.V. Hansen, C.W. Tindale & A.V. Coleman (Eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric. (CD-ROM), Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Willard, C.A. (1989). A Theory of Argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wenzel, J.W. (2003). Arguers’ Obligations: Another Perspective. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_18
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive