Skip to main content
Log in

A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation

Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Is appealing to emotions in argumentation ever legitimate and, if so, what is the best way to analyze and evaluate such appeals? After overviewing a normative pragmatic perspective on appealing to emotions in argumentation, I present answers to these questions from pragma-dialectical, informal logical, and rhetorical perspectives, and note positions shared and supplemented by a normative pragmatic perspective. A normative pragmatic perspective holds that appealing to emotions in argumentation may be relevant and non-manipulative; and that emotional appeals may be analyzed as strategies that create pragmatic reasons and assessed by the standard of formal propriety or reasonability under the circumstances. I illustrate the explanatory power of the perspective by analyzing and evaluating some argumentation from Frederick Douglass’s “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July.” I conclude that a normative pragmatic perspective offers a more complete account of appealing to emotions in argumentation than a pragma-dialectial, informal logical, or rhetorical perspective alone, identifies a range of norms available to arguers, and explains why appealing to emotions may be legitimate in particular cases of argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Anti-Slavery Society 2005. Declaration of Sentiments. In: Reid R. F., Klumpp J. F. (eds) American Rhetorical Discourse, 3rd ed. Waveland Press, Long Gove, IL, pp. 310–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Blassingame J. W. 1982. The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series One: Speeches, Debates, and Interviews, Vol. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Branham, R.: 1999, ‘Abolitionist Reconstructions of July Fourth’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 65–73, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • Brinton A. 1988a. Appeal to the Angry Emotions. Informal Logic 10:77–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinton A. 1988b. Pathos and the “Appeal to Emotion”: An Aristotelian Analysis. History of Philosophy Quarterly 5:207–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinton A. 1994. A Plea for Argumentum ad misericordiam. Philosophia 23:25–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass F. 1999. What to the Slave is the Fourth of July? Extract from an Oration, at Rochester, July 5, 1852. In: Blassingame J. W., McKivigan J. R., Hinks P. P. (eds) The Frederick Douglass Papers, Series Two: Autobiographical Writings, Vol. 2. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 264–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van: 1987, ‘Argumentation Studies’ Five Estates’, in J. W. Wenzel (ed.), Argument and Critical Practices: Proceedings of the Fifth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, pp. 9–24, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, VA

  • Eemeren F. H. van 1990. The Study of Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics. Text 10(1/2):37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Henkemans F. S. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Henkemans F. S., et al. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory: A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R., Jackson S., Jacobs S. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 1997. Rhetorical Rationales for Dialectical Moves: Justifying Pragma-Dialectical Reconstructions. In: Klumpp J. F. (ed.) Argument in a Time of Change: Definitions, Frameworks, and Critiques. National Communication Association, Annandale, VA, pp. 51–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 1999. Strategic Manoeuvring in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1:479–497

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2000. Rhetorical Analysis Within a Pragma-Dialectical Framework: The Case of R. J. Reynolds. Argumentation 14:293–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. 2001. Managing Disagreement: Rhetorical Analysis Within a Dialectical Framework. Argumentation and Advocacy 37:150–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren, F. H. van and P. Houtlosser: 2003, ‘More about Fallacies as Derailments of Strategic Maneuvering: The Case of tu quoque’, IL@25, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, retrieved 21 July 2004 <http://venus.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_vanEemerenHoutlosser.doc>

  • Fusfield W. D.: 1999, ‘“Scorching Irony, Not Convincing Argument, is Needed”: Frederick Douglass on Some Rhetorical Limitations of Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 216–220, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • Gilbert M. A. 1997. Coalescent Argumentation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert M. A. 2001. Emotional Messages. Argumentation 15:239–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J. 2000. Comments on “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics”. Argumentation 14:287–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J. 2001. Cicero’s Authority. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34:38–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin J. 2002. Designing Issues. In: van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 81–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, J.: 2003, ‘Manifestly Adequate Premises’, IL@25, Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation, retrieved 21 July 2004 <http://venus.uwindsor.ca/faculty/arts/philosophy/ILat25/edited_Goodwin.doc>

  • Govier T. 2005. A Practical Study of Argument, 6th ed. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Innocenti B. 1994. Towards a Theory of Vivid Description as Practiced in Cicero’s Verrine Orations. Rhetorica 12:355–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S.: 1999, ‘Argumentation as Normative Pragmatics’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R.␣Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. pp. 397–403, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • Jacobs S. 2000. Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffeld, F. J.: 1995, ‘The Persuasive Force of Argumentation on Behalf of Proposals’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Vol. 2, pp. 79–90, Sic Sat, Amsterdam

  • Kauffeld F. J. 1998. Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing. Argumentation 12:245–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolescu B. I. 2004. Formal Propriety as Rhetorical Norm. Argumentation 18:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manolescu B. I. 2005. Norms of Presentational Force. Argumentation and Advocacy 41:139–151

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe D. J. 1982. The Concepts of Argument and Arguing. In: Cox J. R., Willard C. A. (eds) Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 3–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. 1992. The Place of Emotion in Argument. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beth Innocenti Manolescu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manolescu, B. A Normative Pragmatic Perspective on Appealing to Emotions in Argumentation. Argumentation 20, 327–343 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9016-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9016-9

Keywords

Navigation