Browsing by Subject "Argumentation"
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Appeals to reason : negotiating rhetorical responsibility and dialectical constraints in church-state separation discourse(2014-05) Battistelli, Todd Joseph; Roberts-Miller, Patricia, 1959-This dissertation explores how argumentation theory can supplement models of responsible persuasion in rhetoric and writing studies. In particular, it demonstrates how reasoning as envisioned in the pragma-dialectical approach of argumentation can provide an alternative to exclusionary, unethical operations of reason. Despite longstanding work with models of argument from Aristotle to Stephen Toulmin, rhetoric and writing has paid little attention to the potential uses of dialectical argumentation theory. Such theory deserves greater consideration given its ability to meet the ethical demands voiced by rhetorical critiques of traditional ways of arguing. Critiques of reason demonstrate how the abstractions necessary for logical certainty exist in tension with the inherent ambiguity of human arguments. In attempting to strip away that ambiguity, some discussants unfairly exclude relevant details from others and may exclude entire populations who should be included in a fair deliberation. Goals of understanding and inclusion unite the variety of calls for new ways of arguing made in rhetoric and writing under titles of Rogerian, non-agonistic, listening, and invitational rhetorics. Nevertheless, as Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca describe, even as our arguments involve irresolvable ambiguities, they must also function as stable and coherent viewpoints such that our interlocutors can hold us accountable to agreement or disagreement. In this way, we responsibly argue questions of ethics, politics and law. Though no final resolution of ambiguity is possible in such questions, we can reason together for a better understanding of each other's positions and craft pragmatic policies to deal with our disagreements. In order to explore the disciplinary questions about the relationship between rhetoric and argumentation, the dissertation examines a series of case studies drawn from judicial disputes over church-state separation in the United States. In examining problematic rhetoric of these disputes, the dissertation builds an understanding of responsible reason informed by dialectical argumentation and demonstrates its utility for both critical and pedagogical applications.Item Characterizing argumentation structure within the asynchronous, online communication of novice engineering design students(2014-12) McKenna, William F., active 21st century; Treisman, UriPracticing argumentation in secondary school classrooms benefits students both in terms of learning how to argue and learning the course material at hand. Amidst the onset and growth of engineering design courses in secondary schools, this dissertation is an exploratory case study to characterize the use of argumentation among novice student engineering designers. The setting is a high school robotics class. Specifically, a group of students from one class section teamed up with a group of students from a separate class section to design and build a single robot. The team members communicated online via a shared, editable document. That text is the primary data set for my analysis. I looked for indications of argumentation structure that emerged from the online discussion, given that, to my knowledge, the students had not been taught argumentation strategies, per se. Engineering design is relatively new to secondary school, so I thought it appropriate to develop a baseline—a case study that reveals how students communicate about their designs when left largely to their own devices. This study may inform the development argumentation scaffolds that support the students’ existing strengths while ameliorating their weaknesses. My analytical supposition was that argumentation in design will take the form of resolving differences of opinion toward the creation of a single design. Hence, I used Pragma-dialectic theory as my analytical framework. It is a broad theory, based upon resolving differences of opinion in everyday conversation. As such, Pragma-dialectic theory may also be able to encompass the idiosyncrasies of team design, such as reliance on intuition and experience, as well as the important roles that designed objects play throughout the process. Taken together, the importance of intuition, experience, and objects suggests multiple modes of communication that ought to be considered arguments within design deliberations. Results suggest that the students worked to resolve differences of design opinions. In doing so, the students relied heavily on their designed objects to make their arguments meaningful. I classified five object-based claims which emerged from the students’ discussions: keystone, tinkering, visual, tactile, and counterfactual. These form the beginnings of a theory of object-based argumentation.Item Critical thinking on a logical fallacy(2011-05) Shim, So Young, 1970-; Bonevac, Daniel A., 1955-; Asher, Nicholas; Juhl, Cory; Koons, Robert; Sosa, DavidAd hominem argument is an argument that attacks the defender of a claim rather than the claim in dispute. The purpose of my dissertation is to answer the question of whether ad hominem argument is fallacious. I search for the answer by exploring several areas of philosophy and discussing ad hominem argument from historical, logical, epistemological, and linguistic perspectives. I reach the following conclusions: First, since the conclusion of an ad hominem argument does not appear explicitly in actual argumentation, how to formulate the conclusion plays a crucial role in judging the legitimacy of ad hominem argument; Second, there is no type of logical fallacy unified under the name of “ad hominem” because, at least, some instances of so-called ad hominem fallacy are epistemically justifiable arguments; Third, since an ad hominem argument is used to refute a person’s testimony by attacking his trustworthiness, an ad hominem argument playing a role of undercutting defeater of a speaker’s testimony is legitimate from the perspective of epistemology of testimony; Fourth, since ad hominem argument can be treated as a speech act of argumentation, an ad hominem argument that satisfies the felicity conditions for argumentation is legitimate from the perspective of speech act theory and an ad hominem argument can be legitimately used to reveal the infelicity of the opponent’s argument.Item Enduring character : the problem with authenticity and the persistence of ethos(2013-12) Dieter, Eric Matthew, 1976-; Roberts-Miller, Patricia, 1959-This dissertation is interested in how people talk about character in a variety of public spheres. Specifically, it explores the tangled relationship between authenticity and ethos, or what is taken as the distinction between intrinsic and constructed character. While this dissertation does not presume to settle the question of authenticity’s actuality, it does discuss the ways authenticity cues in rhetorical acts continue to influence how “sincere character” in those acts is understood, even as audiences exhibit shrewdness in recognizing that character is a purposeful manifestation of the rhetor. The fundamental phenomenon this dissertation seeks to describe is how people, with better and worse success, negotiate the dissonance between valuing character as authentic and as presentation and representation. Character in this view is a much richer and more paradoxical concept than many discussions of the term admit. A too-diluted study of ethos limited strictly to pinpointing credibility in an argument makes it difficult to articulate why an exhibition of character sometimes works and sometimes flops. Ethos in its fullest complexity is, and is not, constructed by any single act; it is the consequence of narratives, both of those narratives, and also what we say about those narratives; it is something we know about a rhetor, at the same time that it comes from what the rhetor claims to know; it is, most important, an appeal to authenticity, even when we know ethos is discursively, kairotically, and socially constructed. This dissertation offers an expanded definition of ethos as rhetorical transactions that rhetors and audiences mutually negotiate in order to determine the extent to which all sides will have their rhetorical needs met, and the extent to which all sides can assent to the those needs. The dissertation, using the works of Wayne Booth, Kenneth Burke, and Chaïm Perelman as its primary theoretical structures, offers pedagogic implications for these mutual negotiations.Item The rhetoric of common enemies in the racial prerequisites to naturalized citizenship before 1952(2013-05) Coulson, Douglas Marshall; Roberts-Miller, Patricia, 1959-; Heinzelman, Susan SageThis dissertation examines the rhetorical strategy by which groups unite against common enemies as it appears in a series of judicial cases between 1878 and 1952 deciding whether petitioners for naturalization in the United States were "free white persons" as required by the United States naturalization act at the time. Beginning in 1870, the naturalization act limited racial eligibility for naturalization to "free white persons" and "aliens of African nativity and persons of African descent." Based on the conclusion that Asians were neither "white" nor African, many courts interpreted these provisions to reflect a policy of Asian exclusion. As the distinction between "white" and Asian became increasingly disputed, however, the racial eligibility requirements of the act raised difficult questions about the boundaries of whiteness. I examine the rhetorical strategies adopted in a series of these cases between World War I and the early cold war involving Asian Indian, Armenian, Kalmyk, and Tatar petitioners who were represented as political or religious refugees at risk of becoming stateless if they were denied racial eligibility for naturalization in the United States. I argue that by representing the petitioners in the cases as victims of persecution by the nation's adversaries, the cases reflect a rhetorical strategy of uniting against common enemies which is also prevalent in the legislative, executive, and judicial discourse surrounding the act. I argue that the prevalence of this rhetorical strategy in racial prerequisite discourse suggests that a martial ideal of citizenship often influenced racial classifications under the act and that by recognizing the ways in which this discourse adapted to the rapidly changing enmities of the early twentieth century, a rhetorical interpretation of the cases offers advantages over other interpretive approaches and highlights the value of a rhetoric of law.