Argumentation

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 219–243 | Cite as

Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation

  • David M. Godden

Abstract

The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I conclude (section 4) by suggesting that the resolution to the dispute between Gilbert and his objectors hinges on the outcome of several foundational theoretical questions identified over the course of the paper.

Argument argument-evaluation argument-structure argumentation argumentation-analysis coalescent-argumentation Gilbert, Michael A. informal-logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Bailin, Sharon: 2000, ‘Truth and Reconciliation: Comments on Coalescence’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Elmar Sveda (eds.), Argumentation at the Century's Turn: Proceedings of the Third OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.Google Scholar
  2. Benoit, Pamela J. and William L. Benoit: 1990, ‘To Argue or Not to Argue’, in Robert Trapp and Janice Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL, pp. 55-72.Google Scholar
  3. Brockriede, Wayne: 1975, ‘Where is Argument?’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 11, 197-182 (Reprinted in Trapp and Schuetz, 1990).Google Scholar
  4. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1997, Coalescent Argumentation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  5. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995a, ‘Arguments and Arguers’, Teaching Philosophy 18(2), 125-138.Google Scholar
  6. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995b, ‘Coalescent Argumentation’, Argumentation 9, 837-852.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995c, ‘The Delimitation of “Argument”’, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15, 63-75.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995d, ‘What is an Emotional Argument? or Why do Argument Theorists Quarrel with their Mates?’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation: Vol. 2, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 3-12.Google Scholar
  9. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1994a, ‘Multi-Modal Argumentation’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2), 159-177.Google Scholar
  10. Gilbert, Michael A.: 1994b. 'Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence’, Informal Logic 16(2), 95-113.Google Scholar
  11. Godden, David M.: 2001, ‘On the Relation between Argumentation and Inference’, presented at Argumentation and its Applications: Fourth OSSA Conference, May 17-19, Windsor, ON.Google Scholar
  12. Godden, David M.: 2000a. 'Psychologism in Contemporary Argumentation Theory’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Elmar Sveda (eds.), Argumentation at the Century's Turn: Proceedings of the Third OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.Google Scholar
  13. Godden, David M.: 2000b, ‘Review of C. Tindale Acts of Arguing’, Philosophy in Review 20(5), 384-386.Google Scholar
  14. Godden, David M.: 1998, ‘Commentary on Jose Plug: Indicators of Obiter Dicta’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric: Proceedings of the Second OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.Google Scholar
  15. Johnson, Ralph H.: 2000, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, Ralph H.: 1995, ‘Informal Logic and Pragma-Dialectics: Some Differences’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Perspectives and Approaches: Vol. I, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 237-245.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, Kathleen: 1995, ‘A Feminist Defence of the Critical-Logical Model’, Informal Logic 17, 337-346.Google Scholar
  18. O'Keefe, Daniel J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3), 121-128.Google Scholar
  19. Pinto, Robert C.: 2001, ‘Commentary on D. Godden “On the Relation between Argumentation and Inference”’, presented at Argumentation and its Applications: Fourth OSSA Conference, May 17-19, Windsor, ON.Google Scholar
  20. Tindale, Christopher W.: 1999, Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument, SUNY Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Toulmin, Stephen E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Trapp, Robert and Janice Schuetz (eds.): 1990, Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.Google Scholar
  23. Warnick, Barbara: 1998, ‘Review of M.A. Gilbert Coalescent Arumentation’, Argumentation 12, 427-430.Google Scholar
  24. Wenzel, Joseph W.: 1980, ‘Perspectives on Argument’, in J. Rhodes and S. Newell (eds.), Proceedings of the 1979 Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, pp. 112-133.Google Scholar
  25. Wenzel, Joseph W.: 1987, ‘The Rhetorical Perspective on Argument’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Proceedings of the 1986 Conference on Argumentation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 101-109.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Godden
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMcMaster UniversityHamilton, OntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations