Argumentation

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 291–313

Logical Argument Structures in Decision-making

  • Jane Macoubrie
Article

Abstract

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's practical reasoning theory has attracted a great deal of interest since its publication in 1969. Their most important assertion, however, that argument is the logical basis for practical decision-making, has been under-utilized, primarily because it was not sufficiently operationalized for research purposes. This essay presents an operationalization of practical reasoning for use in analyzing argument logics that emerge through group interaction. Particular elements of discourse and argument are identified as responding to principles put forward by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and are viewed as fitting together in a kind of logical argument structure that is well suited to the study of practical arguments in decision-making. Both the content elements and the logical argument structure are illustrated using examples from two studies examining decision logics in public participation and jury decision-making. Advantages of this approach and proposed recognition of a new `filtered' type of argument structure are discussed.

argumentative case argument content filtered argument logic structures Perelman 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Antaki, C.: 1994, Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.Google Scholar
  3. Bales, R. S. F.: 1951, ‘Phases in Group Problem Solving’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46, 485-495.Google Scholar
  4. Burke, K.: 1966, Language as Symbolic Interaction: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  5. Canary, D. J., J. E. Brossman, B. G. Brossman and H. J. Weger: 1995, ‘Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analysis of Episode-specific Effects or Argument Structures’, Communication Monographs 62, 183-212.Google Scholar
  6. Cappella, J. N.: 1994, ‘The Management of Conversational Interaction in Adults and Infants’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 380-418.Google Scholar
  7. Cegala, D., C. L. Bayer, J. C. B. Teboul, M. Dewhurst and A. Sears: 1992, ‘A Study of Topic of Conversation as an Assessment of Intersubjectivity’, unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  8. Cegala, D., M. G. Dewhurst, G. Galanes, J. M. Burggraf, J. Thorpe, J. Keyton and L. Makay: 1989, ‘A Study of Participants’ Judgments of Topic Change During Conversation: Global Versus Local Definitions’, Communication Reports 2, 62-71.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, J. (ed.): 1981, Stasis Theory, Harcourt Brace, Orlando.Google Scholar
  10. Dijk, T. A. van: 1980, Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  11. Ervin-Tripp, S.: 1964, ‘An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener’, American Anthropologist 66, 86-102.Google Scholar
  12. Eemeren, F. H., van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discourse: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publication, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson, PDA 1.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, W.: 1986, ‘Judging the Quality of Audiences and Narrative Rationality’, in Golden and J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Reidel Publishing, Boston.Google Scholar
  14. Foster, S.: 1986, ‘Learning Discourse Topic Management in the Preschool Years’, Journal of Child Learning 13, 213-250.Google Scholar
  15. Foster, S., and S. Sabsay.: 1982, ‘What's a Topic?’ Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  16. Golden, J. and J. Pilotta: 1986, Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, D. Riedel Publishing Company, Boston.Google Scholar
  17. Gouran, D. S.: 1983, ‘Communicative Influences on Inferential Judgments in Decisionmaking Groups: A Descriptive Approach’, in D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars and F. Rhodes (eds.), Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the third SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 667-682.Google Scholar
  18. Gouran, D. S.: 1986, ‘Inferential Errors, Interaction, and Group Decision-making’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision-making, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 93-112.Google Scholar
  19. Gouran, D. S. and R. Y. Hirokawa: 1996, ‘Functional Theory and Communication in Decision-making and Problem-solving Groups’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision-Making, 2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 55-80.Google Scholar
  20. Gouran, D. S., R. Y. Hirokawa, K. Julian and G. Leatham: 1993, ‘The Evolution and Current Status of the Functional Perspective on Communication in Decision-making and Problemsolving Groups’, in S. Deetz (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 573-600.Google Scholar
  21. Hirokawa, R. Y.: 1983, ‘Group Communication and Problem-solving Effectiveness II: An Investigation of Procedural Functions’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 47, 59-74.Google Scholar
  22. Hirokawa, R. Y.: 1985, ‘Discussion Procedures and Decision-making Performance: A Test of a Functional Perspective’, Human Communication Research 12, 203-224.Google Scholar
  23. Inch, E. and B. Warnick.: 1997, Critical Thinking in Communication, 3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Needham Heights, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobs, S.: 2000, ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics’, Argumentation 14, 261-286.Google Scholar
  25. Keenan, E. O. and B. B. Schieffelin: 1976, ‘Topic as a Discourse Notion: A Study of Topic in the Conversations of Children and Adults’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 337-384.Google Scholar
  26. Kline, S.: 1979, ‘Toward a Contemporary Linguistic Interpretation of the Concept of Stasis’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 15, 95-103.Google Scholar
  27. Lorenzen, P. and K. Lorenzen: 1978, Dialogische Logic (Dialogue Logic), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  28. McLaughlin, M.: 1984, Conversation: How Talk is Organized, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Meyers, R. A. and D. E. Brashers: 1998, ‘Argument in Group Decision-making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument-outcome Link’, Communication Monographs 65, 261-281.Google Scholar
  30. Perelman, C.: 1980, Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Reidel Publishing, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  31. Perelman, C.: 1979, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Application, Reidel Publishing, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  32. Perelman, C., 1982: The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  33. Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.Google Scholar
  34. Phillips, G. M.: 1973, Communication and the Small Group, Bobbs-Merrill, New York.Google Scholar
  35. Planalp, S. and K. Tracy: 1980, ‘Not to Change the Topic But...: A Cognitive Approach to the Management of Conversation’, in D. Nimmo (ed.), Communication Yearbook 4, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 237-258.Google Scholar
  36. Reichmann, R.: 1978, ‘Conversational Coherency’,Cognitive Science 2, 283-327.Google Scholar
  37. Reinhart, T.: 1981, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53-94.Google Scholar
  38. Rieke, R. and M. Sillars: 1997, Argumentation and Critical Decisionmaking, 4th ed., Longman, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Rokeach, M.: 1979, Understanding Human Values, Free Press/Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Ryle, G.: 1976, The Concept of Mind, 5th ed. (1st edition 1949), Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England.Google Scholar
  41. Scheidel, T. M. and L. Crowell: 1964, ‘Idea Development in Small Discussion Groups’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 50, 140-145.Google Scholar
  42. Simon, H.: 1976, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  43. Sykes, R. E.: 1990, ‘Imagining What We Might Study If We Really Studied Small Groups from a Speech Perspective’, Communication Studies 41, 200-211.Google Scholar
  44. Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  45. Toulmin, S. E.: 1988, The Uses of Argument, 9th ed., Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  46. Tracy, K.: 1983, ‘The Issue-Event Distinction: A Rule of Conversation and its Scope Condition’, Human Communication Research 9, 320-334.Google Scholar
  47. Tracy, K.: 1982, ‘On Getting the Point: Distinguishing “Issues” from “Events”, An Aspect of Conversational Coherence’, in M. Burgoon (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, 280-301.Google Scholar
  48. Van Lear, C. A. and E. A. Mabry: 1999, ‘Testing Contrasting Interaction Models for Discriminating between Consensual and Dissentient Decision-making Groups’, Small Group Research 30, 29-58.Google Scholar
  49. Walton, D.: 1996, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.Google Scholar
  50. Warnick, B. and S. Kline: 1992, ‘The New Rhetoric's Argument Schemes: A Rhetorical View of Practical Reasoning’, Argumentation and Advocacy 29, 1-15.Google Scholar
  51. Wenzel, J.: 1979, ‘Jurgen Habermas and the Dialectical Perspective on Argumentation’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 16, 83-92.Google Scholar
  52. Wenzel, J.: 1990, ‘Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic’, in R. Schuetz and J. Trapp (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL, pp. 9-27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane Macoubrie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations