Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Rhetoric’ Category

From the Journal homepage:

In Greek mythology, Eris is the goddess of discord, strife, and quarrel. Aesop warned that Eris should be left undisturbed since combating Eris could cause it to intensify. However, Hesiod recognized Eris’s second nature as a force of progress and improvement, the noble competition. Argumentation and debate can regulate Eris and prioritize its second positive nature, sometimes leading to the solution or dissolution of the dispute.

The purpose of Eris is to refine and reflect on theory and practice of argumentation and debate. It seeks to attract and promote theoretical, empirical, and educational contributions on argumentation and debate from several perspectives (philosophical, rhetorical, educational, psychological, among others) with a focus on both their function to regulate conflicts and disagreements and their epistemic function.

Therefore, we invite you to submit paper proposals for the next issues of Eris. Italian, English, French and Spanish papers will be accepted for peer review.

For paper guidelines, please check the website: Eris.

Read Full Post »

CALL FOR PANELS/PAPERS

“BUILDING CONSENSUS. RHETORIC BETWEEN DEMOCRACY AND CONFLICT”

Palermo, 15-18th April 2015

The aim of this conference is to encourage an interdisciplinary investigation of the role of rhetoric and discursive processes in the realization of democracy and its eventual degenerations. In the contemporary debate on this topic, there seems to be a polarization between two different conceptions of democracy: the “deliberative” one and the “agonistic” one. The first one is related to the classical tradition that considers Habermas as its reference point. This conception emphasizes the role of rational deliberation as a means to produce a legitimate and binding consensus. Instead, the second one draws its inspiration from C. Schmitt, and considers conflict and disagreement as unavoidable conditions of democratic life. Despite their obvious differences, these two theoretical models have a conception of rhetoric in common that is subjected to, or at least separated from, the full exercise of argumentative rationality. Nevertheless, an interpretation of rhetoric that includes the logical-argumentative dimension in the rhetorical domain is possible. In this way, the recovery of rhetoric, considered both as a practice and as a theory of persuasive speech, may shed light on the role of discursive processes in building consensus, and thus might allow a revision of the dialectical tension between the pairs of concepts that the debate tends to focus on: normative/descriptive, rational/irrational, agreement/conflict. Starting from this theoretical framework, the organizers hope to receive papers with a theoretical or historical character that come from different disciplines and perspectives, including: rhetoric, philosophy of language, philosophy of politics, argumentation theory, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and political science.

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

  • Luciano Canfora (University of Bari)
  • Chantal Mouffe (University of Westminster)
  • Paolo Virno (Universitày of Roma III)

The conference will be organized by EIKOS. International Research Group on Rhetoric and hosted by The Department of the Humanistic Sciences at the University of Palermo in cooperation with the International Center for Philosophical Research (CRF).

Conference Proceedings will be published in EPEKEINA. International Journal of Ontology. History and Critics, Vol. 7, n. 2/2016.

For more information visit the conference website:

CRF – Centro Internazionale per la Ricerca Filosofica | EIKOS.

Read Full Post »

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

Vol.36 No. 49

Budzynska Katarzyna, van Eemeren Frans H., Koszowy Marcin, “Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies”

PART I: SPEECH ACTS AND ARGUMENTS

Searle John R., “The Structure and Functions of Language”

Snoeck Henkemans A., Francisca, “Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation”

Andone, Corina, “Maneuvering with the Burden of Proof: Confrontational Strategies in Dealing with Political Accountability”

Goodwin, Jean, “Conceptions of Speech Acts in the Theory and Practice of Argumentation: A Case Study of a Debate about Advocating”

PART II: ARGUMENTATION IN A DIALOGUE

Simons Peter, “Linguistic Complexity and Argumentative Unity: A Lvov-Warsaw School Supplement”

Mackenzie Jim, “From Speech Acts to Semantics”

Jacquette Dale, “Collective Referential Intentionality in the Semantics of Dialogue”

Botting David, “Without Qualification: an Inquiry into the Secundum Quid”

Wells Simon, “Supporting Argumentation Schemes in Argumentative Dialogue Games”

Lewiński Marcin, “Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies”

PART III: DISCUSSION PAPERS

van Laar Jan Albert,”Motivated Doubts: A Comment on Walton’s Theory of Criticism”

Szymanek Krzysztof, “Justification and Argumentation”

Forgács Gábor,”Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework”

All papers are available as open access, pdf downloads at the Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric homepage

Read Full Post »

Informal Logic

Vol 34, No 2 (2014)

Table of Contents

Articles

Rhetoric, Dialectic and Logic: The Wild-Goose Chase for an Essential Distinction (152-166), Charlotte Jørgensen

The Authority of Citations and Quotations in Academic Papers (167-191), Begoña Carrascal

Throwing the Baby Out with the Water: From Reasonably Scrutinizing Authorities to Rampant Scepticism About Expertise (192-218), Markus Seidel

Critical Reviews

Meta-argumentation, An Approach to  Logic and Argumentation Theory (219-239), J. Anthony Blair

All articles available online, open access: Informal Logic:  Reasoning and Argumentation in Theory and Practice

Read Full Post »

Aristotle on Bad Arguments

Leading Minds Research Project.
Leeds, UK
4-5th July, 2014

Why does Aristotle include knowledge of defective arguments within the arts of dialectic and rhetoric? On one attractive way of understanding the nature of Aristotelian rhetoric and dialectic, these are (in large measure) expertises in the use of good arguments and good reasoning to persuade others. How then should we explain the place Aristotle gives to defective arguments (merely apparent enthymemes / syllogisms / refutations, sophisms, and in general invalid and otherwise defective arguments) within his works on these expertises of dialectic and rhetoric (Topics, Sophistical Refutations and Rhetoric)? How should we understand his apparent recommendations regarding the use of such arguments? By what standards of propriety does he mark out arguments as “merely apparent syllogisms/enthymemes”, particularly given his famously “more relaxed” standards for genuine enthymemes in rhetoric?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

POROI 10.1 contains articles by Celeste Condit, G. Thomas Goodnight, and Joshua Welsh.  They are linked by a thematic concern with how new technologies affect common sense and deliberation. Condit, University of Georgia, suggests that digital communication can become an effective means of deliberation and decision. Welsh, Central Washington University, contrasts Aristotle’s negative attitude toward the effect of new technologies on common sense with the more welcoming attitude of modern rhetorical theorists. Goodnight, University of Southern California, argues that the architectonic rhetorical theories of modernity must give way in the digital era to “polytechtonic” approaches.The issue also contains reports from the 2013 pre-conference of the Association for the Rhetoric of Science and Technology (ARST).  They are about how rhetorical scholars are working with scientists as communication consultants on funded collaborative research projects. These reports are by Caroline Druschke, University of Rhode Island; Jean Goodwin and her collaborators at Iowa State University; Sara Parks, Iowa State University; John Reif, University of Pittsburgh; and Kenny Walker, University of Arizona.  The reports are introduced by Jean Goodwin, Iowa State University.  They are commented on by Jamie L. Vernon, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, and Leah Cecarrelli, University of Washington.

POROI welcomes submissions that bring rhetorical invention and criticism to bear on the production, circulation, and consumption of claims to knowledge in all disciplines, professions, communities, and cultures.

To read articles from the latest issue of Poroi, click here.

Read Full Post »

Via the RSA, basic information on grant opportunities for women scholars engaged in projects focused on the history of rhetoric, including synopses. Click on the link below for more information:

More Grants, via the Coalition for Women Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition | The Blogora.

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 95 other followers