, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 165–174 | Cite as

The Relevance of Intention in Argument Evaluation



The paper discusses intention as a rhetorical key term and argues that a consideration of rhetor’s intent should be maintained as relevant to both the production and critique of rhetorical discourse. It is argued that the fact that the critic usually has little or no access to the rhetor’s mind does not render intention an irrelevant factor. Rather than allowing methodological difficulties to constrain critical inquiry, I suggest some ways in which the critic can incorporate the rhetor’s intention in evaluating argumentation. To this end, a standard of fairness is presented.


argument evaluation intention manipulation pragma-dialectic rhetorical criticism standard of fairness 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Booth W. C. 2004, The Rhetoric of Rhetoric: The Quest for Effective Communication. Blackwell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Booth W. C. 2005, War Rhetoric, Defensible and Indefensible. Jac 25: 221–244Google Scholar
  3. Condit C. M. 1997, In Praise of Eloquent Diversity: Gender and Rhetoric as Public Persuasion. Women’s Studies in Communication 20: 91–116Google Scholar
  4. van Eemeren F. H., Grootendorst R. 1992, Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  5. van Eemeren F. H. et al. 1996, Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  6. Foght Mikkelsen J. 2002, Formidlingsetik. Bidrag til en etik om strategisk kommunikation. Roskilde Universitetsforlag, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  7. Foss S. K., Griffin C.L. 1995, Beyond Persuasion: A Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foss S. K., Griffin C. L., Foss K.A. 1997, Transforming Rhetoric through Feminist Reconstruction: A Response to the Gender Diversity Perspective. Women’s Studies in Communication 20: 117–135Google Scholar
  9. Fulkerson R. 1996, Transcending our Conception of Argument in Light of Feminist Critiques. Argumentation and Advocacy 32:199–217Google Scholar
  10. Gearhart S. M. 1979, The Womanization of Rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2: 195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodnight G. T. 1993, A “New Rhetoric” for a “New Dialectic”: Prolegomena to a Responsible Public Argument. Argumentation 7: 329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Herrick, J. A.: 1998 [1997], The History and Theory of Rhetoric. An Introduction, Allyn and Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Jørgensen, C.: 2000, ‹Hvem bestemmer hvad der er god retorik? Vurderingsinstanser i normativ retorik’, Rhetorica Scandinavica 15, 34–48Google Scholar
  14. Jørgensen, C. and Onsberg M. 1999 [1987], Praktisk Argumentation, Teknisk Forlag, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennedy G. A. 1991, Aristotle on Rhetoric. A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Perelman C., Olbrechts-Tyteca L. 1969, The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre DameGoogle Scholar
  17. Perelman C. 1984, The New Rhetoric and the Rhetoricians: Remembrances and Comments. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 188–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Walton D. 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. The University of Alabama Press, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Media, Cognition and Communication, Rhetoric SectionUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations