Page 41 - 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. 41
the elements of argument: six steps to a thick theory 41
mention that the ultimate elements of argument must be elements that
are not reducible to other elements.
This is not the place for an elaboration of what a recognition of
the elements of argument imply for the analysis and evaluation of ar-
gument (much less specific arguments and specific instances of argu-
ment). It must nonetheless be said that the importance of the different
elements of argument differs depending on the argument in question.
If we think of one dimension of argument corresponding to each ele-
ment, then it may be said that different arguments are situated at differ-
ent places within these seven dimensions. As an object may be two rath-
er than three dimensional, an argument may be two or three or four or
seven dimensional. The assessment of some arguments will be heavily
determined by dialogical frames, others not. Some, but not others, will
be packed with emotional content. And so on.
In the context of argument evaluation it might be said that differ-
ent kinds of argument evaluation address the different dimensions of
argument. In judging an argument we may decide to judge the extent
to which its premises are acceptable; the extent to which its conclusion
follows from its premises; the extent to which it successfully addresses
its audience; the extent to which it is dialectically or dialogically appro-
priate; the extent to which it is well expressed in multi-modal terms;
and/or the extent to which it is emotionally successful. It goes with-
out saying that each of these assessments warrants an extended discus-
sion of its own. For the moment it must suffice to say that the theories
that this requires can be seen as further components of the thick the-
ory I propose.
References
American Rhetoric. “Top 100 Speeches.” http://www.americanrheto-
ric.com/newtop100speeches.htm.
Aristotle (2000a). Prior Analytics, translated by A. J. Jenkinston. The
Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.
html.
Aristotle (2000b). Rhetoric, translated by W. Rhys Roberts. The In-
ternet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.
html.
Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke (eds.) (2008): 2nd Special Issue on Visual Ar-
gumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the Ameri-
can Forensic Association, 34/3.
mention that the ultimate elements of argument must be elements that
are not reducible to other elements.
This is not the place for an elaboration of what a recognition of
the elements of argument imply for the analysis and evaluation of ar-
gument (much less specific arguments and specific instances of argu-
ment). It must nonetheless be said that the importance of the different
elements of argument differs depending on the argument in question.
If we think of one dimension of argument corresponding to each ele-
ment, then it may be said that different arguments are situated at differ-
ent places within these seven dimensions. As an object may be two rath-
er than three dimensional, an argument may be two or three or four or
seven dimensional. The assessment of some arguments will be heavily
determined by dialogical frames, others not. Some, but not others, will
be packed with emotional content. And so on.
In the context of argument evaluation it might be said that differ-
ent kinds of argument evaluation address the different dimensions of
argument. In judging an argument we may decide to judge the extent
to which its premises are acceptable; the extent to which its conclusion
follows from its premises; the extent to which it successfully addresses
its audience; the extent to which it is dialectically or dialogically appro-
priate; the extent to which it is well expressed in multi-modal terms;
and/or the extent to which it is emotionally successful. It goes with-
out saying that each of these assessments warrants an extended discus-
sion of its own. For the moment it must suffice to say that the theories
that this requires can be seen as further components of the thick the-
ory I propose.
References
American Rhetoric. “Top 100 Speeches.” http://www.americanrheto-
ric.com/newtop100speeches.htm.
Aristotle (2000a). Prior Analytics, translated by A. J. Jenkinston. The
Internet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/prior.
html.
Aristotle (2000b). Rhetoric, translated by W. Rhys Roberts. The In-
ternet Classics Archive: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.
html.
Birdsell, D., and L. Groarke (eds.) (2008): 2nd Special Issue on Visual Ar-
gumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the Ameri-
can Forensic Association, 34/3.
