Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation: Selected Essays by David Zarefsky

269 Pages·2014·1.72 MB·English

by  David Zarefsky (auth.)

Argumentation Library
David Zarefsky
Rhetorical
Perspectives on
Argumentation
Selected Essays by David Zarefsky
Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation
Argumentation Library
VOLUME 24
Series Editor
Frans H. van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Editorial Board
Bart Garssen, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Scott Jacobs, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
Erik C.W. Krabbe, University of Groningen, The Netherlands
John Woods, University of British Columbia, Canada
For further volumes:
http://www.springer.com/series/5642
David Zarefsky
Rhetorical Perspectives
on Argumentation
Selected Essays by David Zarefsky
David Zarefsky
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL, USA
ISSN 1566-7650
ISBN 978-3-319-05484-1 ISBN 978-3-319-05485-8 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-05485-8
Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014936176
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of
the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed. Exempted from this legal reservation are brief excerpts in connection
with reviews or scholarly analysis or material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Duplication of this
publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the Copyright Law of the Publisher’s
location, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer.
Permissions for use may be obtained through RightsLink at the Copyright Clearance Center. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the respective Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
While the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of
publication, neither the authors nor the editors nor the publisher can accept any legal responsibility for
any errors or omissions that may be made. The publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
For Isabella Louise
My first grandchild

Permissions
Chapter 1 originally appeared as an essay in Making the Case: Advocacy and
Judgment in Public Argument, edited by Kathryn M. Olson, Michael William Pfau,
Benjamin Ponder, and Kirt Wilson (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press,
2012), pp. 1–15. Reprinted by permission of Michigan State University Press.
Chapter 3 originally appeared as an article in Journal of Communication, 58:629–640
(December 2008). Reprinted by permission of the International Communication
Association.
Chapter 4 originally appeared as an article in Informal Logic, 29:299–310 (2009).
Reprinted by permission of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Chapter 5 originally appeared as an essay in The Responsibilities of Rhetoric, edited
by Michelle Smith and Barbara Warnick (Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press,
2010), pp. 13–21. Reprinted by permission of Waveland Press.
Chapter 6 originally appeared as an entry in Proceedings of the [First] Summer
Conference on Argumentation, edited by Jack Rhodes and Sara Newell (Falls Church,
Virginia: Speech Communication Association, 1980), pp. 228–238. Reprinted with
permission from the National Communication Association; all rights reserved.
Chapter 7 originally appeared as an article in Argumentation and Advocacy, 18:
191–203 (Spring, 1982). Reprinted with permission of the American Forensic
Association.
Chapter 9 originally appeared as an essay in Proceedings of the Third Tokyo
Conference on Argumentation, edited by Takeshi Suzuki, Takayuki Kato, and Aya
Kubota (Tokyo: Japan Debate Association, 2008), pp. 299–303. Reprinted with
permission of the Japan Debate Association.
Chapter 10 originally appeared as an essay in Argument in a Time of Change:
Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques, edited by James F. Klumpp (Annandale,
Virginia: National Communication Association, 1998), pp. 1–11. Reprinted with
permission from the National Communication Association; all rights reserved.
vii
viii Permissions
Chapter 13 originally appeared as an essay in Engaging Argument, edited by
Patricia Riley (Washington: National Communication Association, 2006), pp. 29–35.
Reprinted with permission from the National Communication Association; all
rights reserved.
Chapter 14 originally appeared as an essay in Bioethics, Public Moral Argument,
and Social Responsibility, edited by Nancy M.P. King and Michael J. Hyde (New
York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 3–13. Reprinted with permission of Taylor & Francis,
LLC, a division of Informa plc; www.tandfonline.com.
Chapter 16 originally appeared as an article in Argumentation and Advocacy,
21:63–75 (Fall, 1984). Reprinted with permission of the American Forensic
Association.
Chapter 17 originally appeared as an article in Argumentation and Advocacy,
46:140–149 (Summer, 2010). Reprinted with permission of the American Forensic
Association.
Chapter 18 originally appeared as an article in Presidential Studies Quarterly,
34:607–619 (September, 2004). Reprinted by permission of Wiley Blackwell
Publishers.
Chapter 19 originally appeared as an essay in Argument in Transition, edited by
David Zarefsky, Malcolm O. Sillars, and Jack Rhodes (Annandale, Virginia: Speech
Communication Association, 1983), pp. 365–379. Reprinted with permission of the
National Communication Association; all rights reserved.
Chapter 20, coauthored with Dima Mohammed, originally appeared as a chapter in
Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics, edited by Eveline Feteris, Bart Garssen,
and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2011), pp. 89–102.
Reprinted with permission from John Benjamins Publishing Company.
There are instances where we have been unable to trace or contact the copyright
holder. If notified, the publisher will be pleased to rectify any errors or omissions at
the earliest opportunity.
Contents
Part I Objectives of Studying Argumentation Rhetorically
1 Reflections on Making the Case ............................................................. 3
1.1 Dialogic and Rhetorical Argument .................................................. 3
1.2 Making the Case in Public Argument .............................................. 5
1.3 Making the Case Through Analysis of Discourse ............................ 7
1.4 Making the Case Through Case Studies .......................................... 9
1.5 Making the Case Through Historical Inquiry .................................. 10
1.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................... 12
References ................................................................................................. 12
2 Argument as Hypothesis-Testing ........................................................... 15
2.1 The Hypothesis-Testing Paradigm ................................................... 15
2.2 Implications for Current Forensic Practice ...................................... 19
2.3 The Choice Among Paradigms ........................................................ 22
References ................................................................................................. 23
3 Knowledge Claims in Rhetorical Criticism .......................................... 25
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 25
3.2 Argumentation as a Way of Knowing .............................................. 26
3.3 Rhetorical Criticism as Argumentation ............................................ 29
3.4 Characteristics of Argumentation in Rhetorical Criticism ............... 30
3.5 Illustrations ...................................................................................... 34
3.6 The Question of Purpose .................................................................. 34
References ................................................................................................. 35
4 What Does an Argument Culture Look Like? ..................................... 37
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 37
ix