Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Argument (2)
- Normative pragmatics (2)
- (inter)subjectivity (1)
- Adherence (1)
- Argumentation (1)
-
- Argumentative indicators (1)
- Assertion (1)
- Candor (1)
- Cassin (1)
- Controversy (1)
- Disagreement space (1)
- Epideictic (1)
- Exhortation (1)
- Fallacies (1)
- Fallacy (1)
- GMOs (1)
- Humanities (1)
- Informal Logic (journal) (1)
- Informal Logic Newsletter (1)
- Informal logic movement (1)
- Infrastructure (1)
- Institutional fallacy (1)
- Institutionalized fallacy (1)
- Kevin Folta (1)
- Lexical evidentials (1)
- Media (1)
- Multilevel annotation scheme (1)
- Multimodal argument (1)
- Oil drilling (1)
- Opinion articles (1)
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Speech and Rhetorical Studies
Commentary On Jens Kjeldsen’S “What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Everyday Life?”, Harry Weger Jr.
Commentary On Jens Kjeldsen’S “What Makes Us Change Our Minds In Everyday Life?”, Harry Weger Jr.
OSSA Conference Archive
No abstract provided.
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
Doing Things With Arguments: Assertion, Persuasion, Performance, Blake D. Scott
OSSA Conference Archive
In “Three Perspectives on Argument,” Wenzel argued that scholars should orient their research around the well-known triad of rhetorical, dialectical, and logical perspectives on argument. Despite the success of Wenzel’s triad in orienting pluralistic research, he nonetheless maintained that an “eventual synthesis” of the three perspectives was both possible and desirable. In this paper I reconsider Wenzel’s idea by asking what might be preventing such a synthesis today. I argue that one obstacle to this is a common philosophical assumption about rhetoric that opposes assertion to persuasion, truth to effectiveness. Following Barbara Cassin, I challenge this assumption and consider how …
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
Commentary On: Jianfeng Wang’S “Deep Disagreement, Deep Rhetoric, And Cultural Diversity", Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
In this cogent paper, Wang urges argumentation theorists to pay attention to the myriad things that are happening whenever someone makes an argument. To do this he updates and extends the classical rhetorical cannon of style. He documents the importance of argumentative style through a case study of deep disagreement, showing how one arguer’s choices served to reconstruct an otherwise abusive situation. I urge him to continue the project by providing an equally cogent account of explaining why an arguer’s stylistic choices lead to the desired audience’s response.
Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin
Commentary On: Michael Gilbert’S “Understanding The Embrace Of Fallacy: A Multi-Modal Analysis”, Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
If the goal to inquire into, understand, and respond to what it for someone to be “anti-vax,” the concept of fallacy seems the wrong tool to pick up.
Institutional And Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments, Menno H. Reijven
Institutional And Institutionalized Fallacies: Diversifying Pragma-Dialectical Fallacy Judgments, Menno H. Reijven
OSSA Conference Archive
To improve argumentative discourse, it is necessary to make fallacy judgments which take into consideration the social practice in which argumentation occurs. In this paper, I propose four meta-categories for fallacies to study the connection of fallacies to their institutionalized discourse. Using the first 2016 U.S. Presidential Debate as a case study, I show how this framework can be used to propose improvements to argumentative contexts.
Canadian Infrastructure For A “Canadian School” Of Informal Logic And Argumentation, Takuzo Konishi
Canadian Infrastructure For A “Canadian School” Of Informal Logic And Argumentation, Takuzo Konishi
OSSA Conference Archive
This article comments on Federico Puppo's position that a 'Canadian' school of argumentation exists. Based upon archival research, oral history interviews and published documents on the informal logic movement in the 1970s and 1980s, it is argued that Canadian infrastructure for informal logic and argumentation existed, in which a Canadian school of argumentation could exist.
Commentary On “Inducing A Sympathetic (Empathic) Reception For Exhortation”, Sally Jackson
Commentary On “Inducing A Sympathetic (Empathic) Reception For Exhortation”, Sally Jackson
OSSA Conference Archive
People often have conflicting values, goals, and beliefs, and these present special challenges for those who seek to influence them. Kauffeld and Innocenti suggest that these situations of conflictedness are opportunities for a speaker to “exhort” the audience to resolve the conflict in favor of their highest principle. Exhortation, in their view, has high-mindedness as a constitutive feature. At Cooper Union, Lincoln exhorted Republicans to face their fear of disunion and steadfastly maintain the evil of slavery—a confirming example for the Kauffeld and Innocenti account. But looking at a broader set of examples, it seems clear that exhortations do not …
Compassion, Authority And Baby Talk: Prosody And Objectivity, Leo Groarke, Gabrijela Kišiček
Compassion, Authority And Baby Talk: Prosody And Objectivity, Leo Groarke, Gabrijela Kišiček
OSSA Conference Archive
Recent work on multimodal argumentation has explored facets of argumentation which have no obvious analogue in the written arguments which were emphasized in traditional accounts of argument. One of these facets is prosody: the structure and quality of the sound of spoken language. Prosodic features include pitch, temporal structure, pronunciation, loudness and voice quality, rhythm, emphasis and accent. In this paper, we explore the ways that prosodic features may be invoked in arguing.
Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin
Demonstrating Objectivity In Controversial Science Communication: A Case Study Of Gmo Scientist Kevin Folta, Jean Goodwin
OSSA Conference Archive
Scientists can find it difficult to be seen as objective within the chaos of a civic controversy. This paper gives a normative pragmatic account of the strategy one GMO scientist used to demonstrate his trustworthiness. Kevin Folta made his talk expensive by undertaking to answer all questions, and carried out this responsibility by acting as if every comment addressed to him—even the most hostile—was in fact a question in good faith. This presumption of audience good faith gave in turn his audience good reason to presume his good faith, and a situation of reciprocal distrust was transformed into one with …
Strategies Of Objectification In Opinion Articles: The Case Of Evidentials, Elena Musi
Strategies Of Objectification In Opinion Articles: The Case Of Evidentials, Elena Musi
OSSA Conference Archive
This paper investigates lexical evidentials in an English corpus (30 texts) about oil drilling issues in the Adriatic Sea. Lexical evidentials (e.g. see, must, find, evidently) indicate “the kind of justification for a factual claim which is available to the person making that claim […]” (Anderson 1986: 274). They constitute a privileged viewpoint to investigate how and at which degree journalists manage to present their claims as objective since they work as argumentative indicators (Van Eemeren et al. 2007), pointing to inherently subjective (e.g. I find that x) or possibly objective (e.g. It must be …