Rhetorical Argumentation and the Nature of Audience: Toward an Understanding of Audience—Issues in Argumentation

Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):508-532 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


In any field, we might expect different features relevant to its understanding and development to receive attention at different times, depending on the stage of that field’s growth and the interests that occupy theorists and even the history of the theorists themselves. In the relatively young life of argumentation theory, at least as it has formed a body of issues with identified research questions, attention has almost naturally been focused on the central concern of the field—arguments. Focus is also given to the nature of arguers and the position of the evaluator, who is often seen as possessing a “God’s-eye view” (Hamblin 1970). Less attention, however, has been paid in the philosophical literature to the ..

Similar books and articles

Defining Rhetorical Argumentation.Christian Kock - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):437-464.
Argumentation mining.Raquel Mochales & Marie-Francine Moens - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):1-22.


Added to PP

224 (#56,385)

6 months
26 (#46,484)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Christopher Tindale
University of Windsor

References found in this work

Relevance.D. Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 1986 - Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 2.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.
The Realm of Rhetoric.Ch Perelman & William Kluback - 1982 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 17 (4):240-242.

View all 11 references / Add more references