Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adherence (1)
- Argument (1)
- Assertion (1)
- Cassin (1)
- Epideictic (1)
-
- Fallacies (1)
- Fallacy (1)
- Humanities (1)
- Informal Logic (journal) (1)
- Informal Logic Newsletter (1)
- Informal logic movement (1)
- Infrastructure (1)
- Institutional fallacy (1)
- Institutionalized fallacy (1)
- Media (1)
- Normative pragmatics (1)
- Optimal critical testing (1)
- Perelman (1)
- Performance (1)
- Persuasion (1)
- Philosophy (1)
- Pragma-dialectics (1)
- Presidential debate (1)
- Rhetoric (1)
- Style (1)
- Vaccination controversy (1)
- Wenzel (1)
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
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.