Abstract
A prominent, traditional approach to controversy emphasizes problem solving, seeking to develop general methods for its ethical and effective resolution, or particular therapeutic interventions designed for particular cases. The investigator seeks to intervene in a controversy and to resolve it by prescribing best practices for participants. In this, the work must locate the controversy somewhere, and a traditional location is in a decision making dialogue among interlocutors. This location has become well established through long-standing standards and practices of many institutions including training in academic literacy. However, there are many other locations beyond this traditional one. News texts and the reading situation are locations of public controversy, and journalists and news readers are among the participants. News discourse contributes to our experience of public controversy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This term, “the discourse arts,” serves the important purpose here and throughout this book of providing a compact way of referring to the panoply of modern fields that in various ways trade on the traditions of rhetoric and dialectic. It is not meant to indicate or presume the existence of anything like a coherent, universal, institutionalized field of study or research program; in fact, it is the lack of such coherence that makes a term like this necessary. The balkanization of the discourse arts in modern research universities is well documented and generally accepted, though there is much dispute about how this state of affairs should be valued or addressed (Eemeren et al. 1996, p. 191; Liu and Young 1998, pp. 483–486). Use of this term here provides an economical way to refer to the many fields and sub-fields that share common traditions and perspectives relevant to the problem of controversy addressed in this book, and through this, it necessarily glosses many important differences and conflicts.
- 2.
Bonner calls the argument, or “proof,” “the most fundamental part of a forensic speech” (Bonner 1977, p. 295).
- 3.
Some more modern approaches have recognized and explicitly theorized narrative as part of argumentation (Fisher 1987; Kaufer and Butler 1996, 2000).
References
Agha, A. 2007. Language and social relations, Studies in the social and cultural foundations of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric. New York: Modern Library.
Bell, A. 1991. The language of news media. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Bender, J.B., and D.E. Wellbery. 1990. The ends of rhetoric: History, theory, practice. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Berlin, J.A. 1984. Writing instruction in nineteenth-century American colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Blair, J.A., and R.H. Johnson. 1987. Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation 1: 41–56.
Bonner, S.F. 1949. Roman declamation in the late Republic and early Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bonner, S.F. 1977. Education in ancient Rome: From the elder Cato to the younger Pliny. London: Methuen.
Brockriede, W. 1992. Where is argument? In Readings in argumentation, Studies of argumentation in pragmatics and discourse analysis, 73–78. Berlin/New York: Foris.
[Cicero]. 1954. Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi (Rhetorica ad Herennium). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Clark, C.D. 1933. The concept of the public. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly 13: 311–320.
Conley, T.M. 1994. Rhetoric in the European tradition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cox, V., and J.O. Willard. 2006. The rhetoric of Cicero in its medieval and early renaissance commentary tradition. New York: Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition.
Cramer, P.A. 2008. Controversy as a media event category. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse analyses of rhetorical talk and text, Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture, vol. 31, 279–305. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dascal, M. 2005. Argument, war, and the role of the media in conflict management. In Jews, Muslims, and mass media: Mediating the ‘other’, RoutledgeCurzon Jewish studies series, 228–248. London/New York: Routledge Curzon.
Dascal, M. 2006. Introductory essay. In The art of controversies, ed. G.W. Leibniz, xix–lxxii. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dijk, T.A.V. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Eemeren, F.H.V., R. Grootendorst, and F.S. Henkemans. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Eisenhart, C., and B. Johnstone. 2008. Discourse analysis and rhetorical studies. In Rhetoric in detail: Discourse analyses of rhetorical talk and text, Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture, vol. 31, 3–21. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London/New York: Longman.
Fishman, M. 1978. Crime waves as ideology. Social Problems 25: 531–543.
Fleming, D. 2003. The very idea of a Progymnasmata. Rhetoric Review 22: 105–120.
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London/New York: Routledge.
Fritz, C.A. 1929. The teaching of public speaking in the early American colleges. American Speech 5: 107–113.
Fuller, J. 2010. What is happening to news: The information explosion and the crisis in journalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gaonkar, D.P. 1997. The idea of rhetoric in the rhetoric of science. In Rhetorical hermeneutics: Invention and interpretation in the age of science, 25–85. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Geisler, C. 1994. Academic literacy and the nature of expertise: Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Goffman, E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodnight, G.T. 1991. Controversy. In Argument in controversy: Proceedings of the seventh SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, 1–13. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.
Habermas, J. 1974. The public sphere: An encyclopedia article (1964). New German Critique 3: 49–55.
Habermas, J. 1989. The structural transformation of the public sphere. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hall, S. 1978. Policing the crisis: Mugging, the state, and law and order. New York: Holmes & Meier.
Hample, D., P.J. Benoit, J. Houston, G. Purifoy, V. VanHyfte, and C. Wardwell. 1999. Naive theories of argument: Avoiding interpersonal arguments or cutting them short. Argumentation and Advocacy 35: 130–139.
Herman, E.S., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hodge, B., and G.R. Kress. 1993. Language as ideology. London/New York: Routledge.
Howell, W.S. 1975. Poetics, rhetoric, and logic: Studies in the basic disciplines of criticism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jacobs, S. 2000. Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14: 261–286.
Jacobs, S., and S. Jackson. 1982. Conversational argument: A discourse analytic approach. In Advances in argumentation theory and research, 205–237. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Johnstone, H.W. 1978. Validity and rhetoric in philosophical argument: An outlook in transition. University Park: Dialogue Press of Man & World.
Johnstone, B. 1996. The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kaufer, D., and B. Butler. 1996. Rhetoric and the arts of design. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Kaufer, D.S., and C. Geisler. 1989. Novelty in academic writing. Written Communication 6(3): 286–311.
Kennedy, G.A. 2003. Progymnasmata: Greek textbooks of prose composition and rhetoric. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature.
Kress, G.R., and B. Hodge. 1979. Language as ideology. London/Boston: Routledge/Kegan Paul.
Lewis, D.D., Y. Yang, T.G. Rose, and F. Li. 2004. RCV1: A new benchmark collection for text categorization research. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 5: 361–397.
Liu, Y., and R.E. Young. 1998. Disciplinary assumptions and institutional imperatives: Structural tensions in the pedagogy of rhetoric. JAC 18: 475–488.
Mendelson, M. 1994. Declamation, context, and controversiality. Rhetoric Review 13: 92–107.
Mendelson, M. 2001. Quintilian and the pedagogy of argument. Argumentation 15: 277–294.
Mendelson, M. 2002. Many sides: A protagorean approach to the theory, practice, and pedagogy of argument. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.
Nadeau, R. 1952. The Progymnasmata of Aphthonius in translation. Speech Monographs 19: 264–285.
Newspaper Death Watch. 2009. Retrieved from http://www.newspaperdeathwatch.com/.
NIST. 2009. Reuters Corpora. Retrieved from http://trec.nist.gov/data/reuters/reuters.html.
O’Keefe, D.J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.
Parks, E.P. 1945. The Roman rhetorical schools as a preparation for the courts under the early empire. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Phillips, K.R. 1999. A rhetoric of controversy. Western journal of communication 63: 488.
Quintilian. 1920. Institutio Oratoria. (H. Butler, Tran.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schudson, M. 1978. Discovering the news: A social history of American newspapers. New York: Basic Books.
Seneca, L.A., and M. Winterbottom. 1974. The elder Seneca declamations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Senn, S. 2000. Consensus and controversy in pharmaceutical statistics. The Statistician, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society − Series D 49: 135–176.
Silverstein, M. 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In Meaning in anthropology, 11–56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M., and G. Urban. 1996. Natural histories of discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, A. 1978. The long road to objectivity and back again: The kinds of truth we get in journalism. In Newspaper history from the seventeenth century to the present day, 153–171. London/Beverly Hills: Constable/Sage Publications.
Sorkin, A. 2008, July 11. Predicting the end of old media. The New York Times, C8. New York.
Tuchman, G. 1980. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York/London: Free Press/Collier Macmillan.
Urban, G. 1996. Entextualization, replication, power. In Natural histories of discourse, ed. M. Silverstein and G. Urban, 21–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Walton, D.N. 1989. Informal logic: A handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D.N. 2004. Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Weddle, P. 1978. Argument: A guide to critical thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wichelns, H.A. 1966. Literary criticism of oratory. In The rhetorical idiom; essays in rhetoric, oratory, language, and drama, 5–42. New York: Russell & Russell.
Winterbottom, M. 1974. Introduction. In The elder Seneca declamations, vol. 463, vii–xxiv. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cramer, P.A. (2011). Introduction: Where Is Controversy?. In: Controversy as News Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 19. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1288-1_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1288-1_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1287-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1288-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)