Rhetorical Argument

Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 22)

Abstract

This essay is intended to leave in its wake a coherent perspective on the study of rhetorical argument. The rhetorical influences on argumentation studies through the years are generally acknowledged, but just what rhetorical study is, where it originated, how it has evolved, and whether it is a coherent mode of study is problematic. So, this essay attempts to respond to these circumstances. The essay begins with an historical account of the relationship between rhetoric and argumentation. The roots of rhetorical argument are in classical rhetoric. But rhetoric itself has had an uneven history of importance in Western thought, important to the classical age, central to the medieval university, then diminished in importance until the late twentieth century. In that ebb and flow, rhetoric and argument were not always considered partners. The essay focuses on an account the recovery of rhetorical argument in the twentieth century. That recovery flourished within the context of two of the greatest intellectual movements in the twentieth century: the growth of analytic inquiry and the linguistic turn. Then, the essay turns to a brief survey of the rich variety of research in rhetorical argument at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The breadth of research that grows from the rhetorical argument tradition is so diffuse that the coherence is often lost. The essay attempts to weave the fabric in this variety. Finally, grounded in the historical roots and current practice of rhetorical argument, the essay distills the central characteristics that define the study of rhetorical argument.

Keywords

Public Sphere Argumentation Theory Linguistic Turn Rhetorical Argument Argumentation Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aly, B. (1965). Enthymemes: The story of a lighthearted search. Speech Teacher, 14(4), 265–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aristotle. (322 b.c.e.). (1909). Rhetorica (R. C. Jebb, Trans.). Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Asen, R. (2004). A discourse theory of citizenship. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 90(2), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bitzer, L. (1959). Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45(4), 399–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bitzer, L., & Black, E. (Eds.). (1971). The prospect of rhetoric. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Brigance, W. H. (Ed.). (1943). History and criticism of American public address (Vols. 1–2). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Bryant, D. (1953). Rhetoric: Its functions and its scope. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 39(4), 401–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, J. A. (1970). Darwin and the origin of species: The rhetorical ancestry of an idea. Speech Monographs, 37(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, M. K. (2010). Rhetorical contingency and affirmative action: The paths to diversity in regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
  10. Cronkhite, G. (1966). The enthymeme as deductive rhetorical argument. Western Speech, 30(2), 129–134.Google Scholar
  11. Fisher, W. (1964). Uses of the enthymeme. The Speech Teacher, 13(3), 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fisher, W. R. (1987a). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fisher, W. R. (1987b). Technical Logic, rhetorical logic, and narrative rationality. Argumentation, 1, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1973). The birth of the clinic: An archaeology of medical perception (A. M. Sheridan Smith, Trans.). New York: Random House. (Original French edition, 1963.)Google Scholar
  15. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. (Original French edition, 1975.)Google Scholar
  16. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon Books. (Original French edition, 1976.)Google Scholar
  17. 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(3), 214–227.Google Scholar
  18. Greene, R. (2002). Citizenship in a global context: Towards a future beginning for a cultural studies inspired argumentation theory. In G. T. Goodnight (Ed.), Arguing communication and culture (Vol. 1, pp. 97–103). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  19. Greene, R. (2003). John Dewey’s eloquent citizen: Communication, judgment, and postmodern capitalism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 39(3), 189.Google Scholar
  20. Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original German edition, 1973.)Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. (1984, 1987). A theory of communicative action (Vols. 1–2) (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original German editions, 1981.)Google Scholar
  22. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original German edition, 1962.)Google Scholar
  23. Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hitchcock, D. (Ed.). (2005). The uses of argument: Proceedings of a conference at McMaster University (n.p.). Hamilton: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.Google Scholar
  25. Hitchcock, D., & Verheij, B. (Eds.). (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: New essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Hochmuth, M. K. (Ed.). (1955). History and criticism of American public address (Vol. 3). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Ivie, R. L. (2007). Dissent from war. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  28. Klumpp, J. F. (2006). Facts, truth and Iraq: A call to stewardship of democratic argument. In P. Riley (Ed.), Engaging argument (pp. 1–17). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.Google Scholar
  29. Klumpp, J. F. (2009). Argumentative ecology. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(4), 183–197.Google Scholar
  30. Kock, C. (2009). Choice is not true or false: The domain of rhetorical argumentation. Argumentation, 23(1), 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McBurney, J. (1936). The place of the enthymeme in rhetorical theory. Speech Monographs, 3(1), 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McKerrow, R. E. (Ed.). (1993). Argument and the postmodern challenge. Annandale: Speech Communication Association.Google Scholar
  33. Mudd, C. (1959). The enthymeme and logical validity. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45(4), 409–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Parson, D. W. (1993). Kenneth Burke and argument? An introduction. Argumentation and Advocacy, 29(4), 145–147.Google Scholar
  35. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  37. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson, & P. Weaver, Trans.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. (Original work published, 1958.)Google Scholar
  38. Scott, R. L. (1967). On viewing rhetoric as epistemic. Central States Speech Journal, 18(1), 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tannen, D. (1998). The argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  40. Tindale, C. W. (1999). Acts of arguing: A rhetorical model of argument. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S. E. (1950). An examination of the place of reason in ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Toulmin, S. E. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Utterback, W. (1925). Aristotle’s contribution to the psychology of argument. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 11(3), 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Eemeren, F., & Houtlosser, P. (2000). Rhetorical analysis within a pragma-dialectical framework. Argumentation, 14(3), 293–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wallace, K. (1963). The substance of rhetoric: Good reasons. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 49(3), 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walwik, T. (1960). Enthymeme revisited. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46(1), 84–85.Google Scholar
  48. Wichelns, H. (1925). The literary criticism of oratory. In D. C. Bryant (Ed.), The rhetorical idiom: Essays in rhetoric, oratory, language, and drama (pp. 5–42). Rpt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  49. Wiley, E. (1956). The enthymeme: Idiom of persuasion. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 42(1), 19–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wrage, E. (1947). Public address: A study in social and intellectual history. The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 33(4), 451–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wynn, J. (2009). Arithmetic of the species: Darwin and the role of mathematics in his argumentation. Rhetorica, 27(1), 76–97.Google Scholar
  52. Yost, M. (1917). Argument from the point-of-view of sociology. The Quarterly Journal of Public Speaking, 3(2), 109–124.Google Scholar
  53. Zarefsky, D. (1995). Argumentation in the tradition of speech communication studies. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Perspectives and approaches (pp. 32–49). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations