Summary

Argumentation is a form of persuasion that emphasizes reasoning giving. It is useful to distinguish between an argument!, a message unit, and argument,, the act of arguing. In addition to identifying a number of fallacies and classifying the means of persuasion into three types (ethos, logos, and pathos), Aristotle endorsed the enthymeme (an abbreviated syllogism) as the primary means of persuasion.

Monological models, such as Toulmin’s, examine arguments as message units. The basic Toulmin model identifies the claim, grounds, and warrant of an argument. The warrant, which is typically unstated, serves as the link between the claim and the grounds. The extended Toulmin model adds the additional elements of qualifier, backing, and rebuttal.

Dialogical models, such as pragma-dialectics, emphasize the interactive nature of arguing. Pragma-dialectics focuses on resolving disagreements within the boundaries of a set of normative guidelines to which arguers must adhere. Strategic maneuvers that violate the guidelines are considered fallacious or unfair. An ideal argument proceeds through four stages, but in practice many actual arguments do not.

Rhetorical approaches emphasize the persuasive aspects of language and the importance of adapting arguments to the listener’s frame of reference. Perelman’s approach is based on trying to gain another person’s adherence by tailoring arguments to that person’s point of view. Fisher’s narrative paradigm emphasizes the importance of stories as arguments that follow a “logic of good reasons.” Stories are judged on the basis of their narrative probability (coherence) and fidelity.

Notes

• 1 According to one poll, 18 percent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth (a geocentric view), rather than the other way around (the heliocentric view) (Wang & Aamodt, 2008). Copernicus must be spinning in his grave.
• 2 There is some controversy over how best to conceptualize warrants (see Keith & Beard, 2008;Verheij, 2005). For our purposes, however, it is safe to say that warrants authorize the inferential leap from the claim to the grounds.
• 3 Fairy tales may teach unintended values as well. For example, beauty is equated with good and ugliness with evil. Females are portrayed as passive and helpless. Stepmothers don’t fare well either.

References

Aristotle (1982). The rhetoric of Aristotle (L. Cooper, trans.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Arizona v. Hicks, U.S. 321 (1987).

Ball, WJ. (1994). Using Virgil to analyze public policy arguments: A system based on Toulmin’s informal logic. Social Science Computer Review, 72(1), 181—194.

Bentahar, )., Moulin, B. & Belanger, M. (2010). A taxonomy of argumentation models used for knowledge representation. Artificial Intelligence Review, 33(3), 211—259, doi: 10.1007/sl0462-010-9154-l.

Bitzer, L.F. (1959). Aristotle’s enthymeme revisited. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 45(4), 399-408, doi. org/10.1080/00335635909382374.

Bochner, A. (1994). Perspectives on inquiry II: Theories and stories. In M. Knapp & G.R. Miller (Eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 21-41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonevac, D. (2003). Pragma-dialectics and beyond. Argumentation, 77(4), 451—459, doi:10.102 3/A: 1026311002268.

Brockriede, W. (1975). Where is argument? Journal of the American Forensic Association, 11(4), 179—182,doi. org/10.1080/00028533.1975.11951059.

Brockriede, W. & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 46(1), 44—53, doi.org/10.1080/00335636009382390.

Carnes, M.C. (Ed.) (1996). Past imperfect: history according to the movies. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Cole, J.Ik. (Writer) & Singleton, J. (Director) (2016, March 1). The race card [Television series episode], In R. Murphy, N. Jacobson, B. Simpson, S. Alexander, L. Karazewski & B. Falchuk (Executive Producers), The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story. Fox 21 Television Studios and FX Productions.

Corbett, E.P.J. (1971). Classical rhetoric for the modern student (2nd Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dunbar, R. (2010). How many friends does one person need? Dunbar’s number and other evolutionary quirks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ehninger, D. (1970). Argument as method. Speech Monographs, 37(2), 101—110, doi.org/10.1080/0363775 7009375654.

Fisher, W.R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communication Monographs, 51(1), 1—22, doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390180.

Fisher, W.R. (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. Communication Monographs, 52(4), 347—367, doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376117.

Fisher, W.R. (1989a). Clarifying the narrative paradigm. Communication Monographs, 56(1), 55—58, doi. org/10.1080/03637758909390249.

Fisher, W.R. (1989b). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Fisher, W.R. (2000). The ethic(s) of argument and practical wisdom. In T.A. Hollihan (Ed.), Argument at century’s end: Reflecting on the past and envisioning the future (pp. 1-15). Annandale, VA: National Communication Association.

Freeman, J.B. (2005). Systemetizing Toulmin’s warrants: An epistemic approach. Argumentation, 19(3), 331-346, doi: 10.1007/s10503-005-4420-0.

Garssen, B. (2009). Ad hominem in disguise: Strategic manoeuvering with direct personal attacks. Argumentation and Advocacy, 45(4), 207—213, doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2009.11821709.

Gass, R.H. (1988). The narrative perspective in academic debate: A critique. Argumentation and Advocacy, 25(2), 78-92, doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1988.11951386.

Goodnight, G.T. (2006). When reasons matter most: Pragma-dialectics and the problem of informed consent. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 72—82). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hampie, D. (2010). Review of Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness: empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules, by F.H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen & B. Meuffel [book review]. Argumentation, 24(3), 375-381, dot: 10.1007/978-90-481-2614-9.

Hitchcock, D. & Verheij, B. (2005). The Toulmin model today: Introduction to the special issue on contemporary work using Stephen Edelston Toulmin’s layout of arguments. Argumentation, 19(3), 255-258. doi: 10.1007/sl0503-005-4414-y.

Hollihan, T.A. & Baaske, K.T. (2005). Arguments and arguing: The products and process of human decision making, 2nd Ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).

Johnson, R.H. (2000). Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Jonsen, A.R. & Toulmin, S. (1988). The abuse of casuistry: A history of moral reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Keith, W.M. & Beard, D.E. (2008). Toulmin’s rhetorical logic: What’s the warrant for warrants? Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41(1), 22—50, doi: 10.1353/par.2008.0003.

Lardner, G. (1991, May 19). On the set: Dallas in Wonderland; Oliver Stone’s version of the Kennedy assassination exploits the edge of paranoia. Washington Post, p. D-l.

Legge, N.J. & DiSanza, J.R. (1993). Can you make an argument without being in an argument? A relational approach to the study of interactional argument. Journal of the Northwest Communication Association^ 1, 1—19.

Lumer, C. (2010). Pragma-dialectics and the function of argumentation. Argumentation, 24(1), 41—69, doi. org/10.1007/s10503-008-9118-7.

Margolis, J. (1991, May 14). JFK movie and book attempt to rewrite history. Chicago Tribune, p. 19.

Martin, J. (2015, September 2). Nikki Haley says Black Lives Matter is endangering black lives. New York Times. Retrieved on December 22, 2016 from: www.nytimes.eom/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/ nikki-haley-says-black-lives-matter-movement-is-endangering-black-lives/?_r=0.

Mitchell, G.R. (2010). Higher order strategic maneuvering in argumentation. Argumentation, 24(3), 319-335, doi .org/10.1007/s10503-009-9178-3.

O’Keefe, DJ. (1977). Two concepts of argument. The Journal of the American Forensic Association, 13(3), 121-128, doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098.

O’Keefe, DJ. (1982). The concepts of argument and arguing. In J.R. Cox & C.A. Willard (Eds), Advances in argumentation theory and research (pp. 3—23). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Perelman, C. (1982). The realm of rhetoric (William Kluback, trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver, trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Polletta, F. & Lee, J. (2006). Is telling stories good for democracy: Rhetoric and public deliberation after 9/11. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 699—723, doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100501.

Rapp, C. & B. Wagner, T. (2013). On some Aristotelian sources of modern argumentation theory. Argumentation, 27(1), 7-30, doi: 10.1007/sl0503-012-9280-9.

Reisman, S. (2016, July 8). Rudy Giuliani: Black Lives Matter puts a target on police officers’ backs. Mediate. Retrieved on December 22, 2016 from: www.mediaite.com/online/rudy-giuliani-black-lives-matter-puts-a-target-on-police-officers-backs.

Rowland, R.C. (1987). Narrative: Mode of discourse or paradigm. Speech Monographs, 54(3), 264—275, doi.org/10.1080/03637758709390232.

Rowland, R.C. & Barge, J.K. (1991). On argument as disagreement. Argumentation & Advocacy, 28(1), 41.

Seiter, J.S. 8c Gass, R.H. (2010). Aggressive communication in political contexts. In T.A. Avtgis & A.S. Rancer (Eds), Arguments, aggression, and conflict: New directions in theory and research (pp. 217—240). New York: Routledge.

Sociologists for Justice (2014, September 28). Sociologists issue statement on Ferguson. Retrieved on December 22, 2016 from: https://sociologistsforjustice.org/public-statement.

Stephens, O.H. & Glenn, R.A. (2005). Unreasonable searches and seizures: Rights and liberties under the law. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Taylor, J. (2008). The problem of women’s sociality in contemporary North American feminist memoir. Gender & Society, 22(6), 705-727, doi.org/10.1177/0891243208324598.

Toulmin, S.E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument (updated Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S.E., Rieke, R. & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning (2nd Ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Van Eemeren, F.H. (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. & Mueffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. New York: Springer.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Floris Publications.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University' Press.

Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. 8c Henkemans, F.S. (1996). Fundamentals of argumentation theory. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. 8c Henkemans, F.S. (2002). Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Houtlosser, P. (2002a). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F.H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13—28). Amsterdam: SicSat.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Houtlosser, P. (2002b). Strategic maneuvering: Maintaining a delicate balance. In F.H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds), Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis (pp. 131—160). Kluwer: Dordrecht.

Van Eemeren, F.H. & Houtlosser, P. (2003). Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argu-mentum ad verecundiam, a case in point. In F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & F.S. Henkemans (Eds), Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, (pp. 289—292). Amsterdam: SicSat.

Verene, D.P. (1985). Philosophy, argument, and narration. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 22(2), 141-144. Retrieved February 23, 2019 from: www.jstor.org/stable/40237582.

Verheij, B. (2005). Evaluating arguments based on Toulmin’s scheme. Argumentation, 19(3), 347—371, doi. org/10.1007/sl 0503-005-4421 -z.

Voss, J.F. (2005). Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. Argumentation, 19(3), 321-329, doi .org/10.1007/s10503-005-4419-6.

Walton, D.N. (1995). A pragmatic theory of fallacies. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Wang, S. & Aamodt, S. (2008, June 29). Your brain lies to you. New York Times. Retrieved February 23, 2019 from: www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/opinion/29iht-edwang. 1.14069662.html.

Warnick, B. (1987). The narrative paradigm: Another story. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 73(2), 172-182, doi.org/10.1080/00335638709383801.

Woody, R.H. (2006). Search and seizure: The fourth amendment for law enforcement officers. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.