Abstract
Argument theorists often stress the idea of adaptation to context as an alternative to seeing argument as linked propositions. But adaptation is not a clear idea. It is in fact a complicated puzzle. Though many aspects of this puzzle are obscure, one clear conclusion is that the question-answer pair is not a good way to conceptualize adaptation to situation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bitzer, L.F.: 1968, ‘The Rhetorical Situation’, Philosophy and Rhetoric 1, 1–14.
Blau, P. M. and W. R. Scott: 1963, Formal Organizations, Routledge.
Deiter, O. A. L.: 1950, ‘Stasis’, Speech Monographs 17, 345–369.
Donohue, W.: 1978, ‘An Empirical Framework for Examining Negotiation Processes and Outcomes’, Communication Monographs 45, 247–257.
Donohue, W.: 1981a, ‘Analyzing Negotiation Tactics: Development of a Negotiation Interact System’, Human Communication Research 7, 273–287.
Donohue, W.: 1981b, ‘Development of a Model of Rule Use in Negotiation Interaction’, Communication Monographs 48, 106–120.
Douglas, M. D.: 1986, How Institutions Think, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Eemeren, F. H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1983, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.
Fisher, W. R.: 1987, Human Communication as Narration, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.
Fogelin, R. J.: 1985, ‘The Logic of deep Disagreements’, Informal Logic 7, 1–8.
Geissner, H.: 1987, ‘Rhetorical Communication as Argumentation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht.
Giddens, A.: 1974, Positivism and Sociology, Heinemann, Portsmouth.
Giddens, A.: 1976, New Rules of Sociological Method, Basic Books, New York.
Giddens, A.: 1979, Central Problems Social Theory, University of California, Berkeley.
Giddens, A.: 1981, A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism, University of California, Berkeley.
Giddens, A.: 1984, The Constitution of Society, University of California, Berkeley.
Jackson, S. A.: 1987, ‘Conversational Relevance: Three Experiments on Pragmatic Connectedness in Conversation’, in M. L. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication Yearbook, Vol. 10, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Jacobs, S.: 1987, ‘The Management of Disagreement in Conversation’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht.
Johnson, R. H. and J. A. Blair: 1980, ‘Introduction’, in J. A. Blair and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Informal Logic, Edgepress, Inverness.
Kreckel, M.: 1981, Communicative Acts and Shared Knowledge in Natural Discourse, Academic Press, New York.
Lourenço, S. and J. C. Gildwell: 1975, ‘A Dialectical Analysis of Organizational Conflict’, Administrative Science Quarterly 20, 489–508.
Malinowski, B.: 1923, ‘The Context of Situation’, in C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York.
McGee, M. C.: 1982, ‘A Materialist's Conception of Rhetoric’, in R. E. McKerrow (ed.), Explorations in Rhetoric, Scott Foresman, New York.
McPhee, R. D.: 1985, ‘Formal Structure and Organizational Communication’, in R. D. McPhee and P. K. Tompkins (eds.), Organizational Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Meyer, M.: 1983, Meaning and Reading, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Meyer, M.: 1986a, De La Problématologie, Mardaga, Brussels.
Meyer, M.: 1986b, From Logic to Rhetoric, Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Meyer, M.: 1986c, ‘Problematology and Rhetoric’, in J. L. Golden and J. J. Pilotta (eds.), Practical Reason in Human Affairs, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Meyer, M.: 1987, ‘Argumentation Without Propositions’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht.
O'Keefe, B. J.: 1988, ‘The Logic of Message Design: Individual Differences in Reasoning About Communication’, Communication Monographs 55, 80–103.
Poole, M. S.: 1985, ‘Communication and Organizational Climates: Review, Critique, and a New Perspective’, in R. D. McPhee and P. K. Tompkins (eds.), Organizational Communication, Sage, Beverly Hills.
Scriven, M.: 1987, ‘Probative Logic’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Wallace, K. R.: 1970, Understanding Discourse, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
Waller, W.: 1970, ‘The Definition of the Situation’, in G. P. Stone and H. A. Ferberman (eds.), Social Psychology Through Symbolic Interaction, Ginn, Waltham.
Wenzel, J. W.: 1987, ‘The Rhetorical Perspective on argument’, in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Foris, Dordrecht.
Willard, C. A.: 1986a, A Theory of Argumentation, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Willard, C. A.: 1986b, ‘The Balkanization of Knowledge and the Problem of the Public Sphere’, unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, University of Louisville.
Willard, C. A. and T. J. Hynes: 1988, Valuing Dissensus, unpublished manuscript, Department of Communication, University of Louisville.
Woods, J.: 1980, ‘What Is Informal Logic?’, in J. A. Blair and R. H. Johnson (eds.), Informal Logic, Edgepress, Inverness.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Willard, C.A. Adaptation to context. Argumentation 5, 91–107 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058420
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00058420