Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Argument practices

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The move to Postmodernism in argumentation is often predicated on the rejection of the formal basis of argument in logic. While this rejection may be justified, and is widely discussed in the literature, the loss of logic creates problems that a Postmodern theory of argument must address without recourse to logic and its attendant modernist assumptions. This essay argues that conceiving of argument in terms ofpractices will address the key problematics of Postmodernism without abandoning those features of argumentation that make it an important social, cultural and political practice. Implications for both theory and pedagogy are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, R. L. and C. D. Mortenson: 1967, ‘Logic and Marketplace Argumentation,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,53, 143–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, C.: 1971, ‘What's Reasonable,’Communication Quarterly,19, 19–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashmore, M.: 1989,The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth, E. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982,From Axiom to Dialogue, Walter de Gruyter, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, B, and D. Bloor: 1982, ‘Relativism, Rationalism, Sociology of Knowledge,’ in M. Hollis and S. Lukes, (eds.),Rationality and Relativism, MIT Press, Cambridge, 21–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billig, M.: 1987Arguing and Thinking, CUP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockreide, W.: 1972, ‘Arguers as Lovers,’Philosophy and Rhetoric,5, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brockreide, W. and D. Ehninger: 1960, ‘Toulmin on Argument: An Interpretation and Application,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,46, 44–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherwitz, R. and J. Hikins: 1986,Communication and Knowledge, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H.: 1990,Artificial Experts, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronkhite, G. L.: 1966, ‘The Enthymeme as Deductive Rhetorical Argument,’Western Journal of Speech Communication,30, 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delia, J.: 1970, ‘The Logic Fallacy, Cognitive Theory and the Enthymeme: A Search for the Foundations of Reasoned Discourse,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,61, 140–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst: 1983,Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussion, Foris, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, T.: 1977, ‘Validity and Rationality: The Rhetorical Constituents of Argumentative Form,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,14, 121–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, W. R.: 1987,Human Communication as Narration: Toward a Philosophy of Reason, Value and Action, Univ. of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. and W. Ury: 1981,Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S.: 1988,Social Epistemology, Indiana UP, Bloomington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S.: 1989,Philosophy of Science and Its Discontents, Westview Press, Boulder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, 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 

  • Goodnight, T.: 1987, ‘Public Discourse,’Critical Studies in Mass Communication,4, 428–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, G. M.: 1924, ‘Logic and Argumentation,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,10, 350–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, H. P.: 1986, ‘Reply to Richards,’ in R. Grandy and R. Warner, (eds.),Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories and Ends, Clarendon Press, New York, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hample, D.: 1977, ‘The Toulmin Model and the Syllogism,’Journal of the American Forensic Association 14, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraway, D.: 1990, ‘Situated Knowledges,’ inSimians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature, Chapter 9, Free Association Books, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harpine, W. D.: 1985, ‘Can Rhetoric and Dialectic Serve the Purposes of Logic?’Philosophy and Rhetoric,18, 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hikins, J.: 1990, ‘Realism and Rhetoric’ in R. Cherwitz, (ed.)Rhetoric and Philosophy, Hillsdale, Erlbaum, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1989, ‘Finding Common Ground and Zones of Agreement: Two Models of Rationality for Conflict Resolution.’ In Bruce Gronbeck, Rebecca Bjork, Donn Parsons, Dennis Gouran, and M. Sillars, et. al., (eds.),Spheres of Argument, Annadale, Speech Communication Association, VA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, F. L.: 1973, ‘A Reformulation of Rationality in Rhetoric,’Central States Speech Journal,24, 262–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. and J. A. Blair: 1977,Logical Self-Defense, McGraw-Hill-Ryerson, Toronto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N.: 1983,Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness, Cambridge, CUP, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahnerman, D, P. Slovic and A. Tversky: 1982,Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge UP, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keith, W., A. Lesgold, and A. Weiner: (1991), ‘Toward Computer-Supported Instruction of Argumentation,’Proceedings of the Second International Society for the Study of Argumentation Conference, F. van Eermeren, R. Grootendorst, J. Blair and C. Willard, (eds.), Dordrecht: Walter de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F.: 1985,Reflections on Science and Gender, New Yale UP, Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneupper, C. W.: 1978, ‘On Argument and Diagrams,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,14, 181–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke, S.: 1982,Wittgenstein: On Rules and Private Language, Harvard UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H.: 1990,Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry, Princeton UP, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIntyre, A.; 1981After Virtue, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey, J. C.: 1965, ‘Toulmin and the Basic Course,’Communication Education,14, 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, G. E. and H. G. Petrie 1968, ‘The Role of Logic in Rhetoric,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,54, 260–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortenson, C. D. and R. L. Anderson: 1970 ‘The Limits of Logic,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,7, 71–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudd, C. S.: 1959, ‘The Enthymeme and Logical Validity,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,45, 409–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman, C. and M. Obrechts-Tyteca: 1969,The New Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R.: 1979,Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton UP, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R.: 1989,Contingency, Irony, Solidarity, CUP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R.: 1991,Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, CUP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacksteder, W.: 1979, ‘Analogy: Justification for Logic,’Philosophy and Rhetoric,12, 21–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, D. W.: 1966, ‘Rhetoric and Formal Argument,’Western Journal of Speech Communication,30, 241–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. S.: 1962, ‘Formal Logic in Debate,’The Southern Speech Communication Journal,27, 330–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E.: 1958,The Uses of Argument, Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trent, J. D.: 1968, ‘Toulmin's Model of Argument: An Examination and Extension,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,54, 252–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wichelns, Herbert A.: 1925, ‘Analysis and Synthesis in Argumentation,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,11, 266–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1976, ‘On the Utility of Descriptive Diagrams for the Analysis and Criticism of Arguments,’Speech Monographs,43, 308–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1978, ‘Argument as Nondiscursive Symbolism,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,14, 187–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1979, ‘Propositional Argument is to Argument What Talking about Passion is to Passion,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,15, 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1981, ‘The Status of the Nondiscursivenes Thesis,’Journal of the American Forensic Association,17, 190–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1983,Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge, Albama UP, Tuscaloosa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C. A.: 1987, ‘Valuing Dissensus.’ In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard, (eds.)Argumentation: Across the Lines of a Discipline, Foris, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C.: 1989,A Theory of Argumentation, Tuscaloosa: Alabama UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, C.: 1995,Liberalism and the problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, Chicago UP, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L.: 1953,Philosophical Investigations, Macmillan, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolgar, S., (ed.) 1988,Knowledge and Reflexivity: New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yost, M.: 1917 ‘Argument from the Point-of-View of Sociology,’Quarterly Journal of Speech,3, 109–127.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Communication, Oregon State University, 97331-6199, Corvallis, OR, USA

    William Keith

Authors
  1. William Keith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The author would like to acknowledge the invaluable commentary of, and discussions with, John Lyne, Charles Willard, Steven Fuller, and Ed Schiappa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keith, W. Argument practices. Argumentation 9, 163–179 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733107

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00733107

Key words

Search

Navigation