Rhetorical Argumentation and the Nature of Audience: Toward an Understanding of Audience—Issues in Argumentation
Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):508-532 (2013)
AbstractIn 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
The Role of Audience in Argumentation from the Perspective of Informal Logic.Ralph H. Johnson - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):533-549.
Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation. [REVIEW]Christian Kock - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (1):61-80.
Interpreting Perelman’s Universal Audience: Gross vs. Crosswhite. [REVIEW]Charlotte Jørgensen - 2007 - Argumentation 23 (1):11-19.
Constrained Maneuvering: Rhetoric as a Rational Enterprise. [REVIEW]Christopher W. Tindale - 2006 - Argumentation 20 (4):447-466.
Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments.Christopher W. Tindale - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):177-188.
Rhetoric and the Reception Theory of Rationality in the Work of Two Buddhist Philosophers.Sara L. McClintock - 2008 - Argumentation 22 (1):27-41.
Who is the Addressee of Philosophical Argumentation?Shai Frogel - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):397-408.
What Do Normative Approaches to Argumentation Stand to Gain from Rhetorical Insights?Frank Zenker - 2013 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 46 (4):415-436.
Intrinsic Versus Instrumental Values of Argumentation: The Rhetorical Dimension of Argumentation. [REVIEW]Lilian Bermejo-Luque - 2010 - Argumentation 24 (4):453-474.
The conception of audience in Perelman and Isocrates: Locating the ideal in the real. [REVIEW]David Douglas Dunlap - 1993 - Argumentation 7 (4):461-474.
Ways of being reasonable: Perelman and the philosophers.Christopher W. Tindale - 2010 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 43 (4):337-361.
Fallacies in Transition: An Assessment of the Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.Christopher W. Tindale - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (1).
Argumentation mining.Raquel Mochales & Marie-Francine Moens - 2011 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 19 (1):1-22.
Perelman’s Audience Revisted: Towards the Construction of a New Type of Audience. [REVIEW]Galia Yanoshevsky - 2009 - Argumentation 23 (3):409-419.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
The New Rhetoric’s Concept of Universal Audience, Misconceived.J. E. Sigler - 2015 - Argumentation 29 (3):325-349.
Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.) - 2015 - Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
References found in this work
Relevance.D. Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 1986 - Communication and Cognition: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly Journal 2.
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Ch Perelman, L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver - 1969 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 3 (4):249-254.
The Realm of Rhetoric.Ch Perelman & William Kluback - 1982 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 17 (4):240-242.