Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Argumentation Theory

Argumentation theory is a multidisciplinary field drawing from communication theory, linguistics, philosophy, discourse analysis, and social psychology. Argumentation becomes concerned with investigating the nature and structure of argument as it occurs in real, natural situations. Given the frequency with which arguments occur in daily life, it is a vital branch of communication studies.

The area of argumentation theory has, on the one hand, been around since the time of Aristotle, but on the other, it has been around as a demarcated discipline since the 1970s. It was at that time that researchers began investigating interactive argument as it occurs in daily life, or as it is sometimes called, marketplace argument. Very broadly speaking, two approaches can be identified, though there is often overlap. The first approach is the dialectic view and its roots are in formal and informal logic. The dialectic approach emphasizes correct argument that follows rules and procedures intended to guide arguers to the truth or most acceptable conclusion. The research focus tends to be on arguments as objects or artifacts, often referred to as products, and determining their strength and interrelations. The second approach, the rhetorical approach, rests primarily on the ideas of audience and situation. The beliefs, values, and commonly accepted truths, known as loci, form the basis for continuing argumentation and the acceptance of conclusions. On this view, the importance of individual arguments is outweighed by the entire message including word choice, tonality, facial expression, and body movement.

Dialectic

Since ancient times, people have been fascinated by reasoning, its internal composition, its rules and how to utilize and improve it. This led to the creation of formal logic and, later, informal logic. Formal logic had at its base the concept of validity wherein a well-structured argument cannot have a false conclusion if its premises are true. For example, an argument of the form,

If A, and If A then B, then B

cannot result in B being false if A and the conditional, A then B, are both true. Building on Aristotle’s work on the syllogism, generations of logicians developed complex and rigorous systems of mathematical logic.

Disagreement

While formal logic provides an elegant and sophisticated model, it does little to capture the intricacies and subtlety of most human reasoning. In the 1970s, dissatisfaction with formal logic reached a peak. This was in no small part stimulated by the publication of Stephen Toulmin’s The Uses of Argument in 1958, in which he specifically attacked the idea that formal, or as he called it, geometric logic could suffice as a model for marketplace argumentation. His question was, What do people do and what should people do when they want to argue well? He developed a model known as the data-warrant-claim (DWC) model, which he loosely based on judicial reasoning. In asking the question, Who are the most careful reasoners, he concluded that it was those in the judicial realm. While Toulmin offered many insights into the structure of argument, in many ways his strongest contribution was to see that argument happens as a result of interaction. In logic, an argument appears as a whole product or object—an artifact—but in the marketplace, argument happens only when there is a disagreement.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading