Advertisement

Argumentation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 235–250 | Cite as

Purpose, Argument Fields, and Theoretical Justification

  • Robert C. Rowland
Article

Abstract

Twenty-five years ago, field theory was among the most contested issues in argumentation studies. Today, the situation is very different. In fact, field theory has almost disappeared from disciplinary debates, a development which might suggest that the concept is not a useful aspect of argumentation theory. In contrast, I argue that while field studies are rarely useful, field theory provides an essential underpinning to any close analysis of an argumentative controversy. I then argue that the conflicting approaches to argument fields were in fact not inconsistent, but instead reflected different aspects of field practices. A coherent approach to field theory can be developed by considering the way that all aspects of argumentative practice develop based on the purposes of arguers in an argumentative context. I then extend that position to argue that a justifiable theory of argumentation, which makes claims beyond the descriptive, must have at its core an analysis of the way that purpose constrains argumentation practice. In this view, the ultimate justification of principles found in a prescriptive or evaluative theory of argument must be in the way those principles fulfill practical problem-solving purposes related to the epistemic function of argument.

Keywords

Argument field Field practices Purpose Argument justification Epistemic 

References

  1. Avon, R., and R. Hirokawa. 2002. The rhetorical limits of the precautionary principle as a basis for argumentation. In Arguing Communication & Culture, Volume One, ed. G.T. Goodnight, 153–160. Washington: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, P.J. 1988. A case for triangulation in argument research. Journal of the American Forensic Association 25: 31–42.Google Scholar
  3. Bertea, S. 2003. Legal Argumentation Theory and the Concept of the Law. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F.S. Henkemans, 105–110. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  4. Brockriede, W. 1972. Arguers as lovers. Philosophy and Rhetoric 5: 1–11.Google Scholar
  5. Foss, S.K., and C.L. Griffin. 1995. Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Monographs 62: 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gearhart, S.M. 1979. The womanization of rhetoric. Women’s Studies International Quarterly 2: 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert, M.A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Godden, D.M. 2003. On Toulmin’s fields and Wittgenstein’s later views on logic. In Proceedings of the fifth conference of the international society for the study of argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and A.F.S. Henkemans, 369–375. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  9. 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.Google Scholar
  10. Gore, A. 2006. An inconvenient truth. Emmaus: Rodale.Google Scholar
  11. Gronbeck, B.E. 1981. Sociocultural notions of argument fields: A primer. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 1–20. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  12. Hanson, J. 1989. Argument fields, logical types, and shared purposes. In Spheres of argument: Proceedings of the sixth SCA/AFA conference on argumentation, ed. B.E. Gronbeck, 275–285. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  13. Herrick, J.A. 2004. Argumentation: Understanding and shaping arguments. Strata, State College, PA.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, R.H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Klumpp, J.F. 1981. A Dramatistic Approach to Fields. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 44–55. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  16. Kneupper, C.W. 1981. Argument fields: Some social constructivist observations. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 80–87. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  17. Makau, J.M. 1990. Reasoning and communication. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  18. McKerrow, R.E. 1980. Argument communities: A quest for distinctions. In Proceedings of the summer conference on argumentation, eds. J. Rhodes and S. Newell, 214–227. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  19. McKerrow, R.E. 1986. Case studies in field theory: An introduction. Journal of the American Forensic Association 22: 185–186.Google Scholar
  20. McKerrow, R.E. 1990. Argument communities. In Perspectives on argumentation: essays in honor of Wayne Brockriede, eds. R. Trapp and J. Scheutz, 27–40. Waveland: Prospect Heights.Google Scholar
  21. Mill, J.S. 1963. The six great humanistic essays. New York: Washington Square.Google Scholar
  22. Prosie T.O., J.P. Mills, and G.R. Miller. 1996. Fields as arenas of practical discursive struggle: Argument fields and Pierre Bordieu’s theory of social practice. Journal of the American Forensic Association 32: 111–128.Google Scholar
  23. Rescher, N. 1977. Dialectics: A controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rowland, R.C. 1981. Argument Fields. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 56–79. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  25. Rowland, R.C. 1982. The influence of purpose on fields of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 228–245.Google Scholar
  26. Rowland, R.C. 1995. In defense of rational argument: A pragmatic justification of argumentation theory and response to the postmodern critique. Philosophy and Rhetoric 28: 350–364.Google Scholar
  27. Schwarze, S. 2002. Rhetorical traction: Definitions and institutional arguments in judicial opinions about wilderness areas. Argumentation and Advocacy 38: 131–150.Google Scholar
  28. Thomas, D.E. 1997. Deconstruction and rationality: A response to Rowland, or postmodernism 101. Philosophy and Rhetoric 30: 70–81.Google Scholar
  29. Tindale, C.W. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation: Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. Toulmin, S.E. 1953. An examination of the place of reason in ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Toulmin, S.E. 1972. Human understanding: The collective use and evolution of concepts. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning, (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, F.S. Henkemans, et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. Walton, D. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wenzel, J.W. 1982. On fields of argument as propositional systems. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 204–213.Google Scholar
  38. Willard, C.A. 1981. Field theory: A cartesian meditation. In Dimensions of argument: Proceedings of the second summer conference on argumentation, eds. G. Ziegelmueller and J. Rhodes, 21–43. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  39. Zarefsky, D. 1982. Persistent Questions in the Theory of Argument Fields. Journal of the American Forensic Association 18: 191–203.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of KansasLawrenceUSA

Personalised recommendations