Argumentation is the offspring of logic, dialectic, and rhetoric. Differences among them are matters more of degree than of kind, but each reflects basic underlying assumptions. This essay explicates five key assumptions of rhetorical approaches to argumentation: (1) audience assent is the ultimate measure of an argument’s success or failure; (2) argumentation takes place within a context of uncertainty, both about the subject of the dispute and about the process for conducting the dispute; (3) arguers function as restrained partisans and accept risks that follow from such a status; (4) despite its seemingly adversarial nature, argumentation is fundamentally cooperative, pursuing the shared goal of making the best decision; and (5) argumentation is grounded in the situational context of particular cases.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
For a concise summary of pragma-dialectics, see Frans H. van Eemeren, Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective (Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2018).
In fact, Christian Kock maintains that arguing about choices is, indeed, the defining feature of rhetorical approaches to argumentation. See, for example, Kock (2009).
See, for example, van Eemeren, Argumentation Theory, 33–50; Ralph H. Johnson, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum 2000).
These two dimensions of risk are discussed in Johnstone (1965, pp. 1–9).
Aristotle, Rhetoric, 1355b (emphasis added).
Ehninger, Douglas. 1970. Argument as method: Its nature, its limitations and its uses. Communication Monographs 37: 101–110.
Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnstone, Henry W. 1965. Some reflections on argumentation. In Philosophy, rhetoric, and argumentation, ed. M. Natanson and H.W. Johnstone, 1–9. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Johnstone Jr., Henry W. 1970. The problem of the self. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Kock, Christian. 2009. Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation 23: 61–80.
Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans: John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Tulis, J.K., and N. Mellow. 2018. Legacies of losing in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
van Eemeren, Frans H. 2018. Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham: Springer.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Zarefsky, D. Underlying Assumptions of Examining Argumentation Rhetorically. Argumentation 34, 297–309 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09501-2
- Rhetorical argumentation
- Restrained partisanship
- Cooperative argumentation
- Personal risk