Abstract
Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's practical reasoning theory has attracted a great deal of interest since its publication in 1969. Their most important assertion, however, that argument is the logical basis for practical decision-making, has been under-utilized, primarily because it was not sufficiently operationalized for research purposes. This essay presents an operationalization of practical reasoning for use in analyzing argument logics that emerge through group interaction. Particular elements of discourse and argument are identified as responding to principles put forward by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and are viewed as fitting together in a kind of logical argument structure that is well suited to the study of practical arguments in decision-making. Both the content elements and the logical argument structure are illustrated using examples from two studies examining decision logics in public participation and jury decision-making. Advantages of this approach and proposed recognition of a new `filtered' type of argument structure are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Antaki, C.: 1994, Explaining and Arguing: The Social Organization of Accounts, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
Barth, E. M. and E. C. W. Krabbe: 1982, From Axiom to Dialogue: A Philosophical Study of Logics and Argumentation, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York.
Bales, R. S. F.: 1951, ‘Phases in Group Problem Solving’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46, 485-495.
Burke, K.: 1966, Language as Symbolic Interaction: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Canary, D. J., J. E. Brossman, B. G. Brossman and H. J. Weger: 1995, ‘Toward a Theory of Minimally Rational Argument: Analysis of Episode-specific Effects or Argument Structures’, Communication Monographs 62, 183-212.
Cappella, J. N.: 1994, ‘The Management of Conversational Interaction in Adults and Infants’, in M. L. Knapp and G. R. Miller (eds.), Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp. 380-418.
Cegala, D., C. L. Bayer, J. C. B. Teboul, M. Dewhurst and A. Sears: 1992, ‘A Study of Topic of Conversation as an Assessment of Intersubjectivity’, unpublished manuscript, The Ohio State University, Columbus.
Cegala, D., M. G. Dewhurst, G. Galanes, J. M. Burggraf, J. Thorpe, J. Keyton and L. Makay: 1989, ‘A Study of Participants’ Judgments of Topic Change During Conversation: Global Versus Local Definitions’, Communication Reports 2, 62-71.
Davis, J. (ed.): 1981, Stasis Theory, Harcourt Brace, Orlando.
Dijk, T. A. van: 1980, Macrostructures: An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
Ervin-Tripp, S.: 1964, ‘An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener’, American Anthropologist 66, 86-102.
Eemeren, F. H., van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discourse: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publication, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson, PDA 1.
Fisher, W.: 1986, ‘Judging the Quality of Audiences and Narrative Rationality’, in Golden and J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, Reidel Publishing, Boston.
Foster, S.: 1986, ‘Learning Discourse Topic Management in the Preschool Years’, Journal of Child Learning 13, 213-250.
Foster, S., and S. Sabsay.: 1982, ‘What's a Topic?’ Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.
Golden, J. and J. Pilotta: 1986, Practical Reasoning in Human Affairs, D. Riedel Publishing Company, Boston.
Gouran, D. S.: 1983, ‘Communicative Influences on Inferential Judgments in Decisionmaking Groups: A Descriptive Approach’, in D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars and F. Rhodes (eds.), Argument in Transition: Proceedings of the third SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 667-682.
Gouran, D. S.: 1986, ‘Inferential Errors, Interaction, and Group Decision-making’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision-making, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 93-112.
Gouran, D. S. and R. Y. Hirokawa: 1996, ‘Functional Theory and Communication in Decision-making and Problem-solving Groups’, in R. Y. Hirokawa and M. S. Poole (eds.), Communication and Group Decision-Making, 2nd ed., Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 55-80.
Gouran, D. S., R. Y. Hirokawa, K. Julian and G. Leatham: 1993, ‘The Evolution and Current Status of the Functional Perspective on Communication in Decision-making and Problemsolving Groups’, in S. Deetz (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 573-600.
Hirokawa, R. Y.: 1983, ‘Group Communication and Problem-solving Effectiveness II: An Investigation of Procedural Functions’, Western Journal of Speech Communication 47, 59-74.
Hirokawa, R. Y.: 1985, ‘Discussion Procedures and Decision-making Performance: A Test of a Functional Perspective’, Human Communication Research 12, 203-224.
Inch, E. and B. Warnick.: 1997, Critical Thinking in Communication, 3rd Ed., Prentice-Hall, Needham Heights, NY.
Jacobs, S.: 2000, ‘Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics’, Argumentation 14, 261-286.
Keenan, E. O. and B. B. Schieffelin: 1976, ‘Topic as a Discourse Notion: A Study of Topic in the Conversations of Children and Adults’, in C. N. Li (ed.), Subject and Topics, Academic Press, New York, pp. 337-384.
Kline, S.: 1979, ‘Toward a Contemporary Linguistic Interpretation of the Concept of Stasis’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 15, 95-103.
Lorenzen, P. and K. Lorenzen: 1978, Dialogische Logic (Dialogue Logic), Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt.
McLaughlin, M.: 1984, Conversation: How Talk is Organized, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Meyers, R. A. and D. E. Brashers: 1998, ‘Argument in Group Decision-making: Explicating a Process Model and Investigating the Argument-outcome Link’, Communication Monographs 65, 261-281.
Perelman, C.: 1980, Justice, Law, and Argument: Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning, Reidel Publishing, Boston, MA.
Perelman, C.: 1979, The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on Rhetoric and its Application, Reidel Publishing, Boston, MA.
Perelman, C., 1982: The Realm of Rhetoric, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
Perelman, C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN.
Phillips, G. M.: 1973, Communication and the Small Group, Bobbs-Merrill, New York.
Planalp, S. and K. Tracy: 1980, ‘Not to Change the Topic But...: A Cognitive Approach to the Management of Conversation’, in D. Nimmo (ed.), Communication Yearbook 4, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, pp. 237-258.
Reichmann, R.: 1978, ‘Conversational Coherency’,Cognitive Science 2, 283-327.
Reinhart, T.: 1981, ‘Pragmatics and Linguistics: An Analysis of Sentence Topics’, Philosophica 27, 53-94.
Rieke, R. and M. Sillars: 1997, Argumentation and Critical Decisionmaking, 4th ed., Longman, New York.
Rokeach, M.: 1979, Understanding Human Values, Free Press/Macmillan, New York.
Ryle, G.: 1976, The Concept of Mind, 5th ed. (1st edition 1949), Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, England.
Scheidel, T. M. and L. Crowell: 1964, ‘Idea Development in Small Discussion Groups’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 50, 140-145.
Simon, H.: 1976, Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, Free Press, New York.
Sykes, R. E.: 1990, ‘Imagining What We Might Study If We Really Studied Small Groups from a Speech Perspective’, Communication Studies 41, 200-211.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, London.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1988, The Uses of Argument, 9th ed., Cambridge University Press, London.
Tracy, K.: 1983, ‘The Issue-Event Distinction: A Rule of Conversation and its Scope Condition’, Human Communication Research 9, 320-334.
Tracy, K.: 1982, ‘On Getting the Point: Distinguishing “Issues” from “Events”, An Aspect of Conversational Coherence’, in M. Burgoon (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ, 280-301.
Van Lear, C. A. and E. A. Mabry: 1999, ‘Testing Contrasting Interaction Models for Discriminating between Consensual and Dissentient Decision-making Groups’, Small Group Research 30, 29-58.
Walton, D.: 1996, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Warnick, B. and S. Kline: 1992, ‘The New Rhetoric's Argument Schemes: A Rhetorical View of Practical Reasoning’, Argumentation and Advocacy 29, 1-15.
Wenzel, J.: 1979, ‘Jurgen Habermas and the Dialectical Perspective on Argumentation’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 16, 83-92.
Wenzel, J.: 1990, ‘Three Perspectives on Argument: Rhetoric, Dialectic, and Logic’, in R. Schuetz and J. Trapp (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation, Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL, pp. 9-27.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macoubrie, J. Logical Argument Structures in Decision-making. Argumentation 17, 291–313 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025117226851
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025117226851