Abstract
Argumentation is a form of communication, rather than an application of(formal) logic, and is used in communicative activity as a means forinquiry, although it is more typically thought of as bringing inquiry toclosure. Thus interpretation is an intrinsic and crucial aspect ofconversational (interactive) argumentation. In order to further thisunderstanding of argumentative activity, I propose a procedure forinterpretation that draws upon hermeneutic phenomenology. In response tocriticisms by argumentation theorists (and others) who understand thistradition as oriented to psychological, perceptual, or textual objects, Iargue that hermeneutic phenomenology supports methods for analysis ofpublic communicative activity. The resulting conception of ’thick argumentation‘ responds to contemporary (postmodern) claims that argumentation valorizes univocity, stasis, and certainty at the expense ofthe pluralism, fluctuation, and range of epistemic results thatcharacterize discourse in the public sphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M.: 1981, The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. C. Emerson and M. Holquist, University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bernstein, R. J.: 1976, The Restructuring of Social and Political Theory, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Bernstein, R. J.: 1983, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Geertz, C.: 1973, The Interpretation of Culture, Basic Books, New York.
Husserl, E.: 1970, Logical Investigations. Trans. J. B. Findlay, Humanities Press, New York (original publication 1900/01).
Ihde, D.: 1977, Experimental Phenomenology, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York.
Kohak, E.: 1978, Idea and Experience, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Langsdorf, L.: 1994a, ‘Why Phenomenology in Communication Research?’, Human Studies 17, 1–8.
Langsdorf, L.: 1994b, ‘“I Like to Watch”: Analyzing a Participation-and-Denial Phenomenon’, Human Studies 17, 81–108.
McGee, M. C. and J. R. Lyne: 1987, ‘What are Nice Folks Like You Doing in a Place Like This? Some Entailments of Treating Knowledge Claims Rhetorically’, in J. S. Nelson, A. Megill and D. N. McCloskey (eds.), The Rhetoric of the Human Sciences, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, pp. 381–406, Ch. 21.
McKerrow, Raymie E.: 1989, ‘Critical Rhetoric: Theory and Praxis’, Communication Monographs 56, 91–111.
Ricoeur, P.: 1974, The Conflict of Interpretations. Ed. D. Ihde, Northwestern University Press, Evanston.
Ricoeur, P.: 1981, ‘The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as a Text’, in J. B. Thompson (ed.), Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 197–221, Ch. 8 (original article published in 1971).
Schrag, C. O.: 1986, Communicative Praxis and the Space of Subjectivity, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Schrag, C. O.: 1992, The Resources of Rationality, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Sokolowski, R.: 1974, Husserlian Meditations, Northwestern University Press, Evanston.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1972, The Human Understanding, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Willard, C. A.: 1983, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.
Willard, C. A.: 1989, A Theory of Argumentation, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.
Zaner, R. M.: 1970, The Way of Phenomenology, Pegasus, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Langsdorf, L. Argument as Inquiry in a Postmodern Context. Argumentation 11, 315–327 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007720405746
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007720405746