Abstract
This chapter is devoted to the American tradition of communication studies and rhetoric. In Sect. 8.2, the overview of the state of the art starts with a discussion of the role of argumentation in the debate tradition. Although argumentation theory is not yet part of this tradition, all kinds of concepts that were central in the early textbooks still play an important role in argumentation studies in the United States. This justifies paying attention to some of the pre-theoretical notions introduced in these textbooks.
In Sect. 8.3, the starting points for theorizing about argumentation are discussed that later on have been developed in communication studies. The literature concerned is characterized by much reflection on the issues considered to be most crucial to dealing with argumentation: What is argumentation? How does argumentation manifest itself? What is the relation of argumentation to logic, dialectic, and rhetoric? The answers to these questions serve in fact as preambles to the theorizing.
Sect. 8.4 concentrates on the first of the two branches that traditionally can be distinguished in communication studies: historical-political analysis, also known as rhetorical criticism. Sect. 8.5 provides an overview of the other branch, rhetorical theory, again with an emphasis on argumentation and rhetorical phenomena closely related to argumentation.
Sect. 8.6 discusses “argument fields” and “spheres of argumentation” – two important concepts that have been further developed after Toulmin first introduced the notion of argument fields. Sect. 8.7 concentrates on the relatively new research perspective of “normative pragmatics,” an approach that examines the norms playing a part in dealing with argumentation in actual argumentative practices. In Sect. 8.8, the role of argumentation in persuasion research is discussed. Finally, in Sect. 8.9, attention is paid to the study of argumentation in interpersonal communication.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Communication and rhetoric are related disciplines; some see them even as one and the same. In fact, communication theory is broader, ranging from interpersonal interaction to mass communication. Rhetoric has its roots in antiquity and is still firmly connected with these roots.
- 2.
In the United States, the National Communication Association (NCA), founded in 1914, is the largest national organization to promote scholarship and education in communication and rhetoric. The American Forensic Association (AFA) concentrates in particular on academic debate programs. Together, NCA and AFA organize a Biennial summer conference in Alta, Utah. AFA’s journal Argumentation and Advocacy publishes articles on argumentation and debate. In other journals published by NCA, such as the Quarterly Journal of Speech and Communication Monographs, papers on argumentation appear also regularly.
- 3.
During the first century of American colonization, education seemed dominated by the writings of Peter Ramus. By 1730 there was a turn to the classical tradition. Much later, under British influence, American rhetoric became fully Aristotelian. The first complete American rhetoric was that of John Witherspoon: “Based primarily on classical rhetoric, Witherspoon interpreted these principles [of rhetoric] in the light of the philosophy of his own time” (Guthrie 1954, p. 51). During the nineteenth century, there was considerable interest in public address. The English treatises dominating the field were those of John Ward, George Campbell, Hugh Blair, and Richard Whately (Guthrie 1954, p. 80).
- 4.
- 5.
According to Baker and Huntington (1905), conviction and persuasion are complementary, “one being the warp, the other the woof of argumentation” (p. 10). In the subtitle of a collection of essays on the relationship between dialectic and rhetoric, The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis, van Eemeren and Houtlosser (2002) express much later a related view.
- 6.
In later textbooks, a sharper distinction is made between evidence (the material argumentation is based on) and reasoning.
- 7.
These forms or kinds of arguments can be seen as forerunners of the argument schemes. Concepts such as argumentation structures can hardly be found in argumentation and debate handbooks.
- 8.
This interpretation of analogy comes close to Whately’s account. According to Whately (1963, p. 90), resemblances are not so much in the things themselves as in the relations of the things to other things.
- 9.
In leaving out the argument from sign, Foster follows Baker and Huntington (1905, p. 56). Some of the later textbooks do include the argument from sign as a distinct type of argumentation.
- 10.
The types of reasoning that are distinguished are very much like the types distinguished in Foster’s classification. Strikingly, like Foster, Freeley and Steinberg do not include the argument from authority in the classification of types of reasoning. They regard this as a type of evidence, exactly as Foster did.
- 11.
This list of elements is certainly not complete; it is just given to show that, when it comes to the argumentative parts of debate instruction, not much has changed over time.
- 12.
Stock issues are the issues that the affirmative side in a debate has to address in defense of the proposition.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
Willard (1976) argued that in diagramming arguments, the mix of discursive and nondiscursive elements in argument is fundamentally misunderstood and too much credence is given to formal structure.
- 17.
- 18.
See, for example, Kaplow (1981).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
In a Toulmin-like fashion, Brockriede argues that an inferential leap is necessary because in argumentation the premises do not entail the conclusion: “a person has little to argue about if the conclusion does not extend beyond the materials of an argument […]” (1992b, p. 75).
- 22.
Wenzel believes that Brockriede offers a description of the kinds of situations where the study of argument will prove fruitful. He proposes to recast Brockriede’s description as follows: “The study of argument, however one construes it, is generally appropriate in situations where one or more members of a social group (i.e., persons who share a frame of reference) respond(s) to problems or uncertainties by advancing and justifying claims in order to facilitate decisions or choice among alternatives. Incidentally, among other features of interest, is the degree to which such arguers put themselves at risk” (1992, p. 122).
- 23.
Hample (1992) proposes a third concept of argument: argument0. This is “the cognitive dimension of argument – the mental processes by which arguments occur within people” (p. 92). Hample maintains this is necessary because leaving out “a psychological-based understanding of argument would cause confusion, distortion, and superficiality at most” (p. 106). It is the arguer’s cognitive system that controls the meaning and therefore the outcomes of arguments (Hample 1977a, b, 1978, 1979a, b, 1980, 1981).
- 24.
This conception of argumentation helps to organize the branches of the study of argumentation in communication and rhetoric, giving greater coherence to an otherwise disparate and diffuse field. It encompasses argumentation from “the personal” to “the cultural” and includes descriptive and normative dimensions.
- 25.
Strictly, Wenzel does not make a distinction between three different kinds of argument: the three perspectives represent different ways of approaching argumentation.
- 26.
- 27.
Making use of the rhetorical notions of enactment, embodiment, and evocation, Leff (2003) demonstrates in his analysis of Martin Luther King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” how these dimensions of rhetorical argumentation effectively enhance the persuasiveness of the text.
- 28.
In other analyses, Zarefsky (1980) stresses the importance of dissociation and making distinctions in argumentative discourse. He explains Lyndon Johnson’s advocacy of affirmative action by dissociation of the phrase “equal opportunity.”
- 29.
Lucaites and Condit (1999, p. 8) describe rhetorical theory from 1920 through 1960 as “an exercise in intellectual history.” Little nonclassical theorizing took place in the period before the Second World War.
- 30.
After McBurney’s (1994) article was published, a popularized version of his theory has appeared in argumentation and debate handbooks.
- 31.
Bitzer’s “The rhetorical situation” was included in the first issue of the new journal Philosophy and Rhetoric.
- 32.
- 33.
Another influential scholar discussing in the relationship between rhetoric and truth was Thomas Farrell (1999), who developed a conception of “social knowledge” that stood in contrast to “technical knowledge.” He did not go as far as Scott, who believed that rhetoric was generally epistemic. Based on American pragmatism and the social theory of Habermas, Farrell maintained that social knowledge is essential to generating social cooperation: “Social knowledge comprises conceptions of symbolic relationships among problems, persons, interests, and actions, which imply (when accepted) certain notions of preferable public behavior” (1999, p. 142).
- 34.
- 35.
- 36.
For examples of such studies, see McCloskey (1985), Kellner (1989), Hunter (1990), and Simons (1990). This line of inquiry received a powerful boost from the 1984 conference The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences at the University of Iowa, the subsequent formation of the Project on Rhetoric of Inquiry (Poroi) at that institution, and the series of books on rhetoric in the human sciences published by the University of Wisconsin Press (see Nelson et al. 1987).
- 37.
A relatively new area of research, which is still in a stage of development, is argumentation in visual communication. Cara Finnigan, for one, studies persuasive uses in photography. In Finnegan (2003), she focuses on arguing for claims about photographs’ relationship to truth or nature.
- 38.
Zarefsky notes an extensive discussion at conferences on whether fields should be defined in terms of academic disciplines or in terms of broad-based worldviews (such as Marxism and behaviorism) (2012, p. 211).
- 39.
For a collection of papers devoted to spheres of argument, see Gronbeck (1989).
- 40.
- 41.
Cf. these practices with the pragma-dialectical “communicative activity types” discussed in Sect. 10.9 of this volume.
- 42.
Palczewski (2002), too, is worried about the loss of capacities of argument and reason to resolve conflicts. Following other feminist communication scholars, she critiques argument as overly violent and counterproductive. As an alternative to the war metaphors that are according to her predominant in argument, she offers the metaphor of argument as play, hoping that this will make argument more productive.
- 43.
- 44.
Mandziuk (2011), for one, analyzes the use of memorials and antimemorials in arguments in the public sphere. In the complex realm of public discourse and argument, memorials are supposed to commemorate a particular thread of memory. Such statues, monuments, or other objects are designed and located in public to communicate a set of values and an official version of the past. Yet, in response to such public memorials, often art and objects are located or circulated that challenge the dominant discourse about history and remembrance. These “counter-memorials” – sometimes also called “antimemorials” or “countermonuments” – function as sites of contestation, locating arguments in the public sphere that seek to discount, amend, or reinscribe the past in alternative ways, thus directly challenging the idea that a single public memory is possible.
- 45.
Jacobs favors the term normative pragmatics, which was coined by van Eemeren (1990), because it “cuts across the old distinctions between rhetoric and dialectic and because it insists on attention to the uses of argument in ordinary language […]. The term points to analytic practices that are empirical in much the same sense that the broader field of discourse studies is empirical: Our theories and principles ought to be accountable to the actual practices and intuitions of natural language users” (1998, p. 397).
- 46.
In the term normative pragmatics, pragmatics refers to the study of language use by means of Gricean and Searlean pragmatic approaches. Because of its strong emphasis on pragmatic analysis, normative pragmatics has a lot of commonalities with pragma-dialectics. An important difference is that pragma-dialectics also includes a theoretically motivated evaluative approach of argumentation while normative pragmatics tends to stick to a descriptive approach to argumentative language use, without any external normative regulation.
- 47.
Jacobs is not entirely against felicity conditions; he doubts whether there is a strict relationship between a set of felicity conditions and a category of speech acts.
- 48.
In this respect, the approach favored in normative pragmatics is similar to the pragma-dialectical approach. There are a great many other similarities.
- 49.
One such institutional context Jacobs is interested in is third-party dispute mediation: “As a system of dispute resolution, mediation creates a context in which certain ways of arguing are reasonable and functionally constructive and in which other ways of arguing are not” (1998, p. 400).
- 50.
O’Keefe and Jackson (1995) stress the need for paying more attention to argumentation theory to enhance the quality of persuasion research. One important consideration is that argument quality should be assessed by using norms that are theoretically motivated.
- 51.
Amjarso (2010) studied this problem from a pragma-dialectical perspective, referring to the notion of “dialectical strength ” to describe the difference between one-sidedness and two-sidedness in a theoretical way.
- 52.
See Hoeken (1999).
- 53.
O’Keefe (2002) describes influential theories that are not about persuasion proper but have been and still are influential. They include attitude theories, cognitive dissonance theory, and theories of behavioral intention.
- 54.
The Elaborate Likelihood Model can be seen as an attempt to place existing persuasion theory and research under one conceptual umbrella: most attitude theories can be viewed as exemplifying one or the other route (Eagly and Chaiken 1993, p. 306).
- 55.
For other studies of conversational argument, see Craig and Tracy (1983).
- 56.
- 57.
Jackson and Jacobs observe that their research methods have much in common with other social scientific approaches. The differences are that the object of study is argumentative discourse and that their model is structural rather than causal in nature.
- 58.
Jackson and Jacobs even believe that a speech act analysis of conversational argument makes an analysis in terms of sequencing rules superfluous.
- 59.
See van Eemeren et al. (1993) for an elaboration of this idea.
- 60.
- 61.
A related trend in the empirical investigation of argumentation is studying argument in natural settings. Unlike the debate contest or the courtroom, these settings are usually informal and unstructured. School board meetings, labor-management negotiations, counseling sessions, public relations campaigns, and self-help support groups are some of the highly varied settings in which argumentation has been studied. Examples of such studies are Putnam, Wilson, Waltman and Turner (1986), Aakhus (2011), Aakhus and Lewiński (2011), and Hicks and Eckstein (2012).
- 62.
In (2005), Craig and Tracy focus on the meta-discursive uses of “the issue” in two settings: college classroom discussions and public participation at school board meetings.
References
Aakhus, M. (2003). Neither naïve nor normative reconstruction. Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation. Argumentation, 17(3), 265–290.
Aakhus, M. (2011). Crafting interactivity for stakeholder engagement. Transforming assumptions about communication in science and policy. Health Physics, 101(5), 531–535.
Aakhus, M., & Lewiński, M. (2011). Argument analysis in large-scale deliberation. In E. T. Feteris, B. Garssen, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Keeping in touch with pragma-dialectics. In honor of Frans H. van Eemeren (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Amjarso, B. (2010). Mentioning and then refuting an anticipated counterargument. A conceptual and empirical study of the persuasiveness of a mode of strategic manoeuvring. Doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
Baker, G. P. (1895). The principles of argumentation. Boston: Ginn.
Baker, G. P., & Huntington, H. B. (1905). The principles of argumentation. Revised and augmented. Boston: Ginn.
Balthrop, V. W. (1989). Wither the public sphere? An optimistic reading. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 20–25). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Benoit, P. J. (1981). The use of argument by preschool children. The emergent production of rules for winning arguments. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument. Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 624–642). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Benoit, P. J. (1983). Extended arguments in children’s discourse. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 20, 72–89.
Benoit, P. J., & Benoit, W. E. (1990). To argue or not to argue. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 43–54). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Biesecker, B. (1989). Recalculating the relation of the public and technical spheres. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 66–70). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Birdsell, D. S. (1989). Critics and technocrats. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 16–19). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Bitzer, L. F. (1999). The rhetorical situation. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory. A reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Branham, R. J. (1991). Debate and critical analysis. The harmony of conflict. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brockriede, W. (1992a). The contemporary renaissance in the study of argument. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 33–45). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Brockriede, W. (1992b). Where is argument? In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 73–78). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Brummett, B. (1999). Some implications of ‘process’ or ‘intersubjectivity’. Postmodern rhetoric. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory. A reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Burleson, B. R. (1979). On the analysis and criticism of arguments. Some theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 137–147.
Burleson, B. R. (1980). The place of nondiscursive symbolism, formal characterizations, and hermeneutics in argument analysis and criticism. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 222–231.
Campbell, J. A. (1993). Darwin and The origin of species. The rhetorical ancestry of an idea. In T. W. Benson (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism (pp. 143–159). Davis: Hermagoras Press.
Canary, D. J., Brossman, B. G., & Seibold, D. R. (1987). Argument structures in decision-making groups. Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, 18–38.
Canary, D. J., & Sillars, A. L. (1992). Argument in satisfied and dissatisfied married couples. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 737–764). Berlin/New York: Foris.
Canary, D. J., Weger, H., & Stafford, L. (1991). Couples’ argument sequences and their associations in relational characteristics. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 159–179.
Chesebro, J. W. (1968). The comparative advantages case. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 5, 57–63.
Chesebro, J. W. (1971). Beyond the orthodox. The criteria case. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 7, 208–215.
Cohen, H. (1994). The history of speech communication. The emergence of a discipline, 1914–1945. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (Eds.). (1983). Conversational coherence. London: Sage.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2005). “The issue” in argumentation practice and theory. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 11–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Craig, R. T., & Tracy, K. (2009). Framing discourse as argument in Appellate Courtrooms. Three cases on same-sex marriage. In D. S. Gouran (Ed.), The functions of argument and social context. Selected paper from the 16th biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 46–53). Washington, DC: NCA.
Dauber, C. E. (1988). Through a glass darkly. Validity standards and the debate over nuclear strategic doctrine. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 24, 168–180.
Dauber, C. E. (1989). Fusion criticism. A call to criticism. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 33–36). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dunbar, N. R. (1986). Laetrile. A case study of a public controversy. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 22, 196–211.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
van Eemeren, F. H. (1990). The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics. Text, 10(1/2), 37–44.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1993). Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (Eds.). (2002). Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and the woof of argumentation analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method. Its nature, its limitations, and its uses. Communication Monographs, 37, 101–110.
Ehninger, D., & Brockriede, W. (1963). Decision by debate. New York: Dodd, Mead and company.
Fadely, L. D. (1967). The validity of the comparative advantages case. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 4, 28–35.
Fahnestock, J. (2011). Rhetorical style. The uses of language in persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Farrell, T. B. (1977). Validity and rationality. The rhetorical constituents of argumentative form. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 142–149.
Farrell, T. B. (1999). Knowledge, consensus and rhetorical theory. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory. A reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Finnegan, C. A. (2003). Image vernaculars. Photography, anxiety and public argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 315–318). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Foster, W. T. (1908). Argumentation and debating. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Freeley, A. J., & Steinberg, D. L. (2009). Argumentation and debate. Critical thinking for reasoned decision making. Boston: Wadsworth.
Goodnight, G. T. (1980). The liberal and the conservative presumptions. On political philosophy and the foundation of public argument. In J. Rhodes & S. Newell (Eds.), Proceedings of the [first] summer conference on argumentation (pp. 304–337). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
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.
Goodnight, G. T. (1987a). Argumentation, criticism and rhetoric. A comparison of modern and post-modern stances in humanistic inquiry. In J. W. Wenzel (Ed.), Argument and critical practices. Proceedings of the fifth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 61–67). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Goodnight, G. T. (1987b). Generational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation. Across the lines of discipline. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 129–144). Dordrecht-Providence: Foris.
Goodnight, G. T. (1991). Controversy. In D. W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy. Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 1–13). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Goodnight, G. T. (2012). The personal, technical and public spheres of argument. A speculative inquiry into the art of public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 198–210.
Goodnight, G. T., & Gilbert, K. (2012). Drug advertisement and clinical practice. Positing biopolitics in clinical communication. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, J. (2005). Designing premises. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Argumentation in practice (pp. 99–114). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, J. (2007). Argument has no function. Informal Logic, 27(1), 69–90.
Gray, G. W. (1954). Some teachers and the transition to twentieth-century speech communication. In K. R. Wallace (Ed.), History of speech education in America. Background studies (pp. 422–446). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gronbeck, B. E. (Ed.). (1989). Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation. Annandale: SCA.
Gross, A. (1990). The rhetoric of science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Guthrie, W. (1954). Rhetorical theory in colonial America. In K. R. Wallace (Ed.), History of speech education in America. Background studies (pp. 48–79). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hample, D. (1977a). Testing a model of value argument and evidence. Communication Monographs, 44, 106–120.
Hample, D. (1977b). The Toulmin model and the syllogism. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14, 1–9.
Hample, D. (1978). Predicting immediate belief change and adherence to argument claims. Communication Monographs, 45, 219–228.
Hample, D. (1979a). Motives in law. An adaptation of legal realism. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 156–168.
Hample, D. (1979b). Predicting belief and belief change using a cognitive theory of argument and evidence. Communication Monographs, 46, 142–146.
Hample, D. (1980). A cognitive view of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 151–158.
Hample, D. (1981). The cognitive context of argument. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 148–158.
Hample, D. (1992). A third perspective on argument. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 91–115). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Hample, D. (2005). Arguing. Exchanging reasons face to face. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hample, D., Warner, B., & Young, D. (2009). Framing and editing interpersonal arguments. Argumentation, 23, 21–37.
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston.
Hazen, M. D., & Hynes, T. J. (2011). An exploratory study of argument in the public and private domains of differing forms of societies. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 750–762). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Hicks, D., & Eckstein, J. (2012). Higher order strategic maneuvering by shifting standards of reasonableness in cold-war editorial argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.), Exploring argumentative contexts (pp. 321–339). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hoeken, H. (1999). The perceived and actual persuasiveness of different types of inductive arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth international conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 353–357). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Holmquest, A. H. (1989). Rhetorical gravity. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 37–41). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Howell, W. S. (1940). The positions of argument. An historical examination. In D. C. Bryant (Ed.), Papers in rhetoric (pp. 8–17). Saint Louis: Washington University.
Hultzen, L. S. (1958). Status in deliberative analysis. In D. C. Bryant (Ed.), The rhetorical idiom. Essays presented to Herbert A. Wichelns (pp. 97–123). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hunter, A. (Ed.). (1990). The rhetoric of social research. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Hynes, T. J. (1989). Can you buy cold fusion by the six pack? Or Bubba and Billy-Bob discover Pons and Fleischmann. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 42–46). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Ivie, R. L. (1987). The ideology of freedom’s ‘fragility’ in American foreign policy argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 24, 27–36.
Jackson, S. (1983). The arguer in interpersonal argument. Pros and cons of individual-level analysis. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Argument in transition. Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 631–637). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Jackson, S. (1992). ‘Virtual standpoints’ and the pragmatics of conversational argument. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 260–269). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1980). Of conversational argument. Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 66, 251–265.
Jackson, S., & Jacobs, S. (1982). The collaborative production of proposals in conversational argument and persuasion. A study of disagreement regulation. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 77–90.
Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation, 3, 345–365.
Jacobs, S. (1998). Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth ISSA conference on argumentation (pp. 397–403). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Jacobs, S. (2000). Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation, 14(3), 261–286.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1981). Argument as a natural category. The routine grounds for arguing in natural conversation. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 118–132.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1982). Conversational argument. A discourse analytic approach. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 205–237). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1983). Strategy and structure in conversational influence attempts. Communication Monographs, 50, 285–304.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (1989). Building a model of conversational argument. In B. Dervin, L. Grossberg, B. J. O’Keefe, & E. Wartella (Eds.), Rethinking communication (pp. 153–171). Newbury Park: Sage.
Johnson, K. L., & Roloff, M. E. (2000). The Influence of argumentative role (initiator vs. resistor) on perceptions of serial argument resolvability and relational harm. Argumentation, 14(1), 1–15.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1959). Philosophy and argument. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1970). The problem of the self. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1983). Truth, anagnorisis, and argument. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 16, 1–15.
Journal of the American Forensic Association, (1982), 18, 133–160. Special forum on debate paradigms.
Kaplow, L. (1981). Rethinking counterplans. A reconciliation with debate theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 17, 215–226.
Kauffeld, F. J. (1998). Presumption and the distribution of argumentative burdens in acts of proposing and accusing. Argumentation, 12(2), 245–266.
Kauffeld, F. J. (2009). What are we learning about the pragmatics of the arguer’s obligations? In S. Jacobs (Ed.), Concerning argument. Selected papers from the 15th biennial conference on argumentation (pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: NCA.
Keith, W. (Ed.) (1993). Rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. Southern Communication Journal, 58, 4. Special Issue.
Kellner, H. (1989). Language and historical representation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Klumpp, J. F., Riley, P., & Hollihan, T. H. (1995). Argument in the post-political age. Emerging sites for a democratic lifeworld. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation. Special fields and cases (pp. 318–328). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Kneupper, C. W. (1978). On argument and diagrams. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 14, 181–186.
Kneupper, C. W. (1979). Paradigms and problems. Alternative constructivist/interactionist implications for argumentation theory. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 15, 220–227.
Laycock, C., & Scales, R. L. (1904). Argumentation and debate. New York: Macmillan.
Leff, M. C. (2003). Rhetoric and dialectic in Martin Luther King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 255–268). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Leff, M. C., & Mohrmann, G. P. (1994). Lincoln at Cooper Union. A rhetorical analysis of the text. In T. W. Benson (Ed.), Landmark essays on rhetorical criticism (pp. 173–187). Davis: Hermagoras Press.
Lewinski, J. D., Metzler, B. R., & Settle, P. L. (1973). The goal case affirmative. An alternative approach to academic debate. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 9, 458–463.
Lichtman, A. J., Garvin, C., & Corsi, J. (1973). The alternative-justification affirmative: A new case form. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 10, 59–69.
Lichtman, A. J., & Rohrer, D. M. (1980). The logic of policy dispute. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 16, 236–247.
Lucaites, J. L., & Condit, C. M. (1999). Introduction. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory. A reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Lyne, J. (1983). Ways of going public. The projection of expertise in the sociobiology controversy. In D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Argument in transition. Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation (pp. 400–415). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Mandziuk, R. M. (2011). Commemoration and controversy. Negotiating public memory through counter memorials. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden, & G. Mitchell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1155–1164). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Manolescu, B. I. (2006). A normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation. Argumentation, 20(3), 327–343.
McBurney, J. H. (1994). The place of the enthymeme in rhetorical theory. In E. Schiappa (Ed.), Landmarks essays on classical Greek rhetoric. Davis: Hermagoras Press.
McCloskey, D. N. (1985). The rhetoric of economics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
McKerrow, R. E. (1977). Rhetorical validity. An analysis of three perspectives on the justification of rhetorical argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13, 133–141.
Mills, G. E. (1964). Reason in controversy. An introduction to general argumentation. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Mitchell, G. (1998). Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35(4), 41–60.
Nadeau, R. (1958). Hermogenes on ‘stock issues’ in deliberative speaking. Speech Monographs, 25, 62.
Natanson, M., & Johnstone, H. W., Jr. (1965). Philosophy, rhetoric, and argumentation. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Nelson, J. S., Megill, A., & McCloskey, D. N. (Eds.). (1987). The rhetoric of the human sciences. Language and argument in scholarship and public affairs. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Newman, R. P. (1961). Recognition of communist China? A study in argument. New York: Macmillan.
O’Keefe, B. J., & Benoit, P. J. (1982). Children’s arguments. In J. R. Cox & C. A. Willard (Eds.), The field of argumentation. Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 154–183). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1992). Two concepts of argument. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 79–90). Berlin-New York: Foris.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
O’Keefe, D. J., & Jackson, S. (1995). Argument quality and persuasive effects. A review of current approaches. In S. Jackson (Ed.), Argumentation and values. Proceedings of the ninth Alta conference on argumentation (pp. 88–92). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Palczewski, C. H. (2002). Argument in an off key. Playing with the productive limits of argument. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication and culture (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: NCA.
Paliewicz, N. S. (2012). Global warming and the interaction between the public and technical spheres of argument. When standards for expertise really matter. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 231–242.
Patterson, J. W., & Zarefsky, D. (1983). Contemporary debate. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Peters, T. N. (1989). On the natural development of public activity. A critique of Goodnight’s theory of argument. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 26–32). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). San Diego: Academic.
Prelli, L. J. (1989). A rhetoric of science. Inventing scientific discourse. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Putnam, L. L., Wilson, S. R., Waltman, M. S., & Turner, D. (1986). The evolution of case arguments in teachers’ bargaining. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 23, 63–81.
Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (1975). Argumentation and the decision-making process. New York: Wiley.
Rowell, E. Z. (1932). Prolegomena to argumentation, II. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 18, 238–248.
Rowland, R. C. (1992). Argument fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 469–504). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Rowland, R. C. (2012). Spheres of argument. 30 years of influence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 195–197.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics of the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.
Schiappa, E. (1989). ‘Spheres of argument’ as topoi for the critical study of power/knowledge. In B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument. Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 47–56). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Schiappa, E. (2001). Second thoughts on critiques of Big Rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(3), 260–274.
Schiappa, E. (2002). Evaluating argumentative discourse from a rhetorical perspective. Defining ‘person’ and ‘human life’ in constitutional disputes over abortion. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and rhetoric. The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 65–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schiappa, E. (2012). Defining marriage in California. An analysis of public and technical argument. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 211–215.
Schiappa, E., & Swartz, O. (1994). Introduction. In E. Schiappa (Ed.), Landmarks essays on classical Greek rhetoric. Davis: Hermagoras Press.
Scott, R. L. (1999). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. In J. L. Lucaites, C. M. Condit, & S. Caudill (Eds.), Contemporary rhetorical theory. A reader. New York: Guilford Press.
Shaw, W. C. (1916). Systematic analysis of debating problems. Journal of Speech Education, 2, 344–351.
Sillars, M. O. (1981). Investigating religious argument as a field. In G. Ziegelmueller & J. Rhodes (Eds.), Dimensions of argument. Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation (pp. 143–151). Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Simons, H. W. (1990). The rhetoric of inquiry as an intellectual movement. In H. W. Simons (Ed.), The rhetorical turn. Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago-London: University of Chicago Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1st ed., 1958).
Trapp, R. (1990). Arguments in interpersonal relationships. In R. Trapp & J. Schuetz (Eds.), Perspectives on argumentation. Essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede (pp. 43–54). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.
Warnick, B., & Inch, E. S. (1989). Critical thinking and communication. The use of reason in argument. New York: Macmillan.
Weger, H. (2001). Pragma-dialectical theory and interpersonal interaction outcomes. Unproductive interpersonal behavior as violations of rules for critical discussion. Argumentation, 15(3), 313–329.
Weger, H. (2002). The relational consequences of violating pragma-dialectical rules during arguments between intimates. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 197–214). Newport News: Vale.
Weger, H. (2013). Engineering argumentation in marriage. Pragma-dialectics, strategic maneuvering, and the “fair fight for change” in marriage education. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 2(3), 279–298.
Wenzel, J. W. (1992). Perspectives on argument. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 121–143). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Whately, R. (1963). Elements of rhetoric. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press (1st ed., 1826).
Willard, C. A. (1976). On the utility of descriptive diagrams for the analysis and criticism of arguments. Communication Monographs, 43, 308–319.
Willard, C. A. (1983). Argumentation and the social grounds of knowledge. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Willard, C. A. (1989). A theory of argumentation. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.
Willard, C. A. (1992). Field theory. A Cartesian meditation. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 437–467). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Willard, C. A. (1996). Liberalism and the problem of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Willard, C. A. (Guest Ed.) (1982). Special issue, symposium on argument fields. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 191–257.
Williams, D. C., Ishiyama, J. T., Young, M. J., & Launer, M. K. (1997). The role of public argument in emerging democracies. A case study of the 12 December 1993 elections in the Russian Federation. Argumentation, 11(2), 179–194.
Winans, J. A., & Utterback, W. E. (1930). Argumentation. New York: Century.
Windes, R. R., & Hastings, A. C. (1969). Argumentation and advocacy. New York: Random House.
Yost, M. (1917). Argument from the point of view of sociology. Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, 3, 109–127.
Young, M. J., & Launer, M. K. (1995). Evaluative criteria for conspiracy arguments. The case of KAL 007. In E. Schiappa (Ed.), Warranting assent. Case studies in argument evaluation (pp. 3–32). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Zarefsky, D. (1969). The ‘traditional case’ – ‘comparative advantage case’ dichotomy: Another look. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 6, 12–20.
Zarefsky, D. (1980). Lyndon Johnson redefines ‘equal opportunity’. The beginnings of affirmative action. Central States Speech Journal, 31, 85–94.
Zarefsky, D. (1982). Persistent questions in the theory of argument fields. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 18, 191–203.
Zarefsky, D. (1986). President Johnson’s war on poverty. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Zarefsky, D. (1990). Lincoln, Douglas, and Slavery. In the crucible of public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Zarefsky, D. (1992). Persistent questions in the theory of argument fields. In W. L. Benoit, D. Hample, & P. J. Benoit (Eds.), Readings in argumentation (pp. 417–436). Berlin-New York: Foris.
Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the tradition of speech communication studies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation (pp. 32–52). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Zarefsky, D. (2012). Goodnight’s “speculative inquiry” in its intellectual context. Argumentation and Advocacy, 48(2), 211–215.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Henkemans, A.F.S., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2014). Communication Studies and Rhetoric. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9472-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9473-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and Law