Page 34 - Gabrijela Kišiček and Igor Ž. Žagar (eds.), What do we know about the world? Rhetorical and argumentative perspectives, Digital Library, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana 2013
P. 34
What Do We Know about the World?
In the development of a thick theory of argument, the role that frames
play in determining standards of argument means that a theory which
aims to provide a truly general account of argument must be dialogically
(as well as dialectically and rhetorically) enhanced. I will therefore pro-
pose the recognition of dialogues and the frames that accompany them
as a fourth step in our development of a thick theory.
6. Step Five: Multi-Modal Argument
Steps 2, 3 and 4 in our thick theory all extend logic’s traditional ac-
count of argument so that it recognizes the role that context plays in in-
stances of argument. The final two steps I want to propose as a route to a
thick theory move in a different direction, broadening the scope of what
logic (and most argumentation traditions) counts as argument. Step 5 is
a broadening of the notion of argument beyond the assumption that ar-
guments are conveyed verbally, as collections of sentences. In response to
this assumption, many commentators have now argued that arguments
can be expressed and communicated in non-verbal ways (see, e.g., Bird-
sell and Groarke, 2008; Blair, 1996; Dove, 2012; Groarke, 1996; Roque,
2008; Shelley, 1996; Slade, 2002; van den Hoven, 2011). Even textbooks
have extended their accounts of argument to make room for non-verbal
instances of argument (see Groarke and Tindale, 2013; and Lunsford
et al., 2010). While some sceptics remain (notably Fleming, 1996, and
Johnson, 2005), the thick theory I propose – which aims for as broad a
theory of argument as possible –explicitly includes “multi-modal” argu-
ments which have non-verbal elements.
The fundamental reason for accepting multi-modal arguments is
the root notion that an argument is an attempt to support a conclusion
by presenting evidence for it – something that can clearly be done in
ways that extend beyond premises and conclusions understood as declar-
ative sentences. To take only a few examples, I may try to convince you
of some claim by presenting photographs, drawing a map, pointing to
something, telling a story (fiction or non-fiction), showing a film, paint-
ing a picture, and so on and so forth. Our lives are replete with situations
in which evidence for some point of view is presented in these and other
ways that do not neatly correspond to the verbal paradigm that was al-
ways stressed in traditional accounts of argument.
In this essay, I will confine myself to one personal example. Con-
sider a debate spurred by an unusual fruit I discovered during a kayak
ride on the Detroit River. When my description (“nothing I recognize;
In the development of a thick theory of argument, the role that frames
play in determining standards of argument means that a theory which
aims to provide a truly general account of argument must be dialogically
(as well as dialectically and rhetorically) enhanced. I will therefore pro-
pose the recognition of dialogues and the frames that accompany them
as a fourth step in our development of a thick theory.
6. Step Five: Multi-Modal Argument
Steps 2, 3 and 4 in our thick theory all extend logic’s traditional ac-
count of argument so that it recognizes the role that context plays in in-
stances of argument. The final two steps I want to propose as a route to a
thick theory move in a different direction, broadening the scope of what
logic (and most argumentation traditions) counts as argument. Step 5 is
a broadening of the notion of argument beyond the assumption that ar-
guments are conveyed verbally, as collections of sentences. In response to
this assumption, many commentators have now argued that arguments
can be expressed and communicated in non-verbal ways (see, e.g., Bird-
sell and Groarke, 2008; Blair, 1996; Dove, 2012; Groarke, 1996; Roque,
2008; Shelley, 1996; Slade, 2002; van den Hoven, 2011). Even textbooks
have extended their accounts of argument to make room for non-verbal
instances of argument (see Groarke and Tindale, 2013; and Lunsford
et al., 2010). While some sceptics remain (notably Fleming, 1996, and
Johnson, 2005), the thick theory I propose – which aims for as broad a
theory of argument as possible –explicitly includes “multi-modal” argu-
ments which have non-verbal elements.
The fundamental reason for accepting multi-modal arguments is
the root notion that an argument is an attempt to support a conclusion
by presenting evidence for it – something that can clearly be done in
ways that extend beyond premises and conclusions understood as declar-
ative sentences. To take only a few examples, I may try to convince you
of some claim by presenting photographs, drawing a map, pointing to
something, telling a story (fiction or non-fiction), showing a film, paint-
ing a picture, and so on and so forth. Our lives are replete with situations
in which evidence for some point of view is presented in these and other
ways that do not neatly correspond to the verbal paradigm that was al-
ways stressed in traditional accounts of argument.
In this essay, I will confine myself to one personal example. Con-
sider a debate spurred by an unusual fruit I discovered during a kayak
ride on the Detroit River. When my description (“nothing I recognize;
