Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2009

Call for Proposals for RSQ 2011 Special Issue

RSQ invites proposals for the 2011 special fifth issue. The fifth issue will be a themed publication developed by a Guest Editor, with the aim of enabling the journal to help set the intellectual agenda in rhetorical studies, to encourage focused statements on timely topics in rhetorical studies by scholars working in related areas, to attract participation by top scholars, and to stimulate scholarly activity within the RSA, such as pre-conference colloquia, convention sessions, or RSA workshops.

Proposals should identify the Guest Editor, provide a descriptive rationale of no more than 500 words, a list of authors, as well as a brief discussion (150-250 words) of each individual essay. The rationale should demonstrate the timeliness of the topic, discuss how the topic falls within the scope of RSQ as described in its general submission guidelines, and where applicable, address the proposal’s relationship to other similar-themed issues or edited collections, and note the qualifications of its guest editor and contributors to speak to the field on the topic’s behalf.

The special fifth issue is allotted the same amount of space as the regular four quarterly issues, 102 pages, which will accommodate a guest editor’s introduction and 4-6 articles totaling 40,000 words.  It will be published in the fall of 2011.

Deadline for proposal submission: February 15, 2010

RSA will make available to the guest editor up to $1,000 reimbursement for expenses related to the special issue. First drafts of manuscripts for the selected proposal will be due in mid-January 2011; final versions will be due June 1.

Please submit proposals electronically to:

Debra Hawhee, RSQ Associate Editor for Special Issues, hawhee@psu.edu

Read Full Post »

Read the CFP in French, Italian, German, or Spanish

The Eighteenth Biennial Conference of the International Society for the History of Rhetoric (ISHR) will be held in Bologna, Italy, from Monday, July 18th to Friday, July 22, 2011. The biennial Conference of ISHR brings together several hundred specialists in the history of rhetoric from around thirty countries. This will be the first meeting of the Society in Italy since 1993.

SCHOLARLY FOCUS OF THE CONFERENCE

The Society calls for papers that focus on the historical aspect of the theory and practice of rhetoric. In honor of the origin of the University of Bologna the main theme of the Conference will be “Rhetoric and Law”. Papers dedicated to this theme will explore points of contact between rhetoric and law and their mutual influence through the centuries.
Papers are also invited on every aspect of the history of rhetoric in all periods and languages and the relationship of rhetoric to poetics, literary theory and criticism, philosophy, politics, art, religion, geographic areas and other elements of the cultural context.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Read the CFP in French

International symposium organized by the CRAL (Centre de recherches sur les arts et le langage), CNRS/EHESS, as part of a French-Mexican research project. It will be held in Paris, at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, September 7th – 9th, 2010.

Persuasion has long been opposed to argumentation. From this standpoint, conviction would pertain only to argumentation because it is based on reason, whereas persuasion would rest on techniques of manipulation aimed at producing an effect on the audience. Perelman, for instance, even though he put emphasis on the importance of the audience, nevertheless defended a universally valid conception of rationality whose goal is to convince a universal audience, whereas persuasion is oriented toward a particular audience. Yet this opposition has been qualified by what is called, since Hamblin’s seminal work, the “pragmatic turn” of argumentation, as argumentation always occurs in a given context, limiting its scope to the context in which it occurs.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

International Institute for Argumentation Studies Amsterdam

This Summer School, to be taught by the research group Argumentation in Discourse, focuses on the analysis and evaluation of strategic manoeuvring in argumentative discourse in various argumentative activity types (political, medical, legal, etc.). The Summer School will be held from Monday, July 5, to Friday, July 9. Participation is open to all international PhD students specializing in argumentation or having a strong interest in argumentation. The participation fee, which includes lunches and receptions, is € 150,- . Lodging is not included, but will be offered against reduced rates. Because no more than 20 PhD students can be admitted to the course, interested students are advised to register as soon as possible. If you want to participate, please send an e-mail to Bart Garssen.

Read Full Post »

With only one week left in 2009 it’s time to look back on the year’s events.  No look back for argumentation scholars would be complete without some rememberence of Stephen Toulmin, whose recent death was a great loss to the community of argumentation scholars.  Readers who wish to do so can read Prof. Toulmin’s obituary in the New York Times by clicking here.  Condolences are due to those who were students of Stephen Toulmin, or who knew him or his family personally.

But good things happened too. Though we all stay pretty busy, it’s also true that we can’t follow everything that happens and as a result we miss things.  This is especially true in an international and interdisciplinary study like argumentation theory.  Bearing that in mind, I’m wondering what, in your view, were the year’s high points for argumentation theory?  Were there any books or articles that marked the year for you as a particularly important one?  What developments happened this year that you think were significant, but expect that others might have missed?

For my part, I’d say that the combination of the CRRAR Summer Institute and OSSA 2009 would have to be at the top of my list for the year.   I’m also excited about the launch of the new journal Cogency, which I think will bring great things in the near  future.  (Not that I imagine that many people didn’t know about either of those those things. 🙂 )

What do you think? What were the year’s high points for you?

Read Full Post »

LRR10: LOGIC, REASONING AND RATIONALITY

http://www.lrr10.ugent.be/

September 20-22, 2010

Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science, Ghent University, Belgium

The idea that there is a strong connection between logic, reasoning, and rationality, which was very popular among the philosophers of the Wiener Kreis, has long been out of  fashion. Findings from history and philosophy of science and from cognitive psychology have revealed that the traditional logician’s tool, Classical Logic, is not fit for explicating human reasoning either in the sciences or in everyday life. Times have changed, however. Today, a multiplicity of formal frameworks (ranging from non-classical  logics over probability theory to Bayesian networks) is available in addition to Classical Logic. Also, historians and philosophers of science as well as psychologists have described a rich variety of patterns in both scientific and common sense reasoning.

The aim of LRR10 is to stimulate the use of formal frameworks to explicate concrete  examples of human reasoning and, conversely, to challenge scholars in formal studies by presenting them with interesting new examples of actual reasoning. Therefore, we welcome papers in all areas related to non-classical logics and non-classical formal frameworks. We also welcome case studies from history and philosophy of science, as well as from psychology, that enhance our apprehension of concrete reasoning patterns that occur in the sciences and in everyday life. Finally, we welcome contributions that deal with the philosophical implications of the present-day insights for our understanding of rationality.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Most of the readers of this blog are likely also to be teachers of  argumentation theory in some or other way.  If this is true of you, I’m wondering: what are your favorite argumentation theory textbooks?  With which ones have you had the best experiences in the classroom? Relatedly, what makes an argumentation theory text a good one for classroom use?

In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to vary my choices quite a bit, so I can’t say that I have a definite overall favorite.   That said, there are bits of some books that I really like, and that have influenced the way that present certain topics.  My short list includes the first three chapters of the latest edition of Logical Self Defense on identifying and interpreting arguments.  On evaluative criteria for arguments I really like Trudy Govier’s treatment of what she calls the “ARG” conditions in chapter 3 of A Practical Study of Argument.   Chapters 1 and 5 of Douglas Walton’s Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation I’ve found to work really well for issues concerning dialogues and the relationship between dialogue and argument.  The treatment of speech acts and conversational implicature given in chapter 1 of Understanding Arguments, by Fogelin & Sinnott-Armstrong is also one that I’ve found very helpful for students.

That’s my short list, anyway.  As is easy to see from those choices my approach largely comes from within the informal logic tradition. I’d be especially interested to learn what readers who teach in the rhetorical tradition or from a pragma-dialectical orientation use.

Read Full Post »

Arguments from Hamblin, Chapter 7
David Hitchcock’s diagram of Hamblin’s arguments against requiring true premises. (photos: Kelly Webster, editing: Steve Patterson)

This past Summer I had the great good fortune to participate in the Summer Institute in Argumentation hosted by CRRAR.  The Summer Institute preceded the OSSA conference, so the whole experience turned out to be about two and half weeks of really great discussions on all kinds of topics in argumentation theory and rhetoric.

One of the topics that’s been bouncing around in the back of my thoughts since then has been the question of whether or not an argument must have true premises in order to be good.  The question was raised in a fantastic session on Chapter 7 of Hamblin’s Fallacies that was led by David Hitchcock during the Summer Institute.  Hamblin, of course, answers this question in the negative, and I think it fair to say that the consensus of most of those attending agreed with him in that. For my part, I’ve been mulling it over since then and a few thoughts are beginning to emerge.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Cogency announces a special issue devoted to papers on Wittgenstein’s role in the development of informal logic and argumentation theory. Contributions will illustrate how Wittgenstein’s ideas have been applied (or misapplied) have aided (or have impeded) research in these inquiries.

Possible topics could include:

•    The implication of Wittgenstein’s views for argumentation theory
•    Wittgenstein’s views on formal logic
•    Wittgenstein’s influence on the development of informal logic
•    Wittgenstein and Rhetoric
•    Wittgenstein and Dialectic
•    Wittgenstein and uses of reason
•    The logic of deep disagreements

All papers will be blind refereed.

Guest Editor: Dr. Ralph H. Johnson. Submit papers to him at johnsoa@uwindsor.ca Subject line: Cogency—Special Issue on Wittgenstein

Format specifications: Papers should be in Word (or compatible program) in Times New Roman 12 pt font, single-spaced, 8000 words at most. Consult MLA Style manual for how to handle quotations and references.

Closing Date for submissions: March 1, 2010.
Publication Date: August, 2010

Read Full Post »

Centre for the Study of Argumentation and Reasoning
Faculty of Psychology
Diego Portales University
Santiago
Chile


CALL FOR PAPERS

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
LOGIC, ARGUMENTATION AND CRITICAL THINKING II

October 7-9, 2010

Keynote speakers:

Eveline Feteris, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Chris Reed, University of Dundee, Scotland
Luis Vega, UNED, Spain

The organizing committee invites proposals for papers on logic, informal logic, argumentation theory, rhetoric, and critical thinking.

ABSTRACTS of 200-250 words prepared for blind refereeing must be submitted electronically no later than June 30, 2010 to Cristián Santibánez: cristian.santibanez@udp.cl

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »