COM 7110: Theory of Argument
Fall 2008 * Manoogian 280
Course Information:
Instructor: Dr. Kelly Young
Phone: 313-577-2953 (my office)
313-577-2946 (forensics secretary—Helen--phone)
Office: 536 Manoogian
Email:
Texts/Readings:
· Readings on Argumentation Angela Aguayo & Timothy Steffensmeier (2008) Strata Publishing, State College, PA
· Course readings available on course Blackboard website
Attendance:
It will be expected that all students will attend all meetings. Students are also expected to have carefully read all the readings on the syllabus for each class meeting. A portion of your grade is based on attendance and participation in class.
Assignments:
1. Reaction Papers:
- Overview: Over the course of the semester, each student is required to critically respond to six of weekly sets of assigned readings. The question for the weekly reading (e.g., “What are the Criteria to Evaluate Good Argument?”) will serve as the question you are asked to respond to. The papers should be between 4-5 pages in length (without bizarre font and margin manipulation). Each weekly reading set will cover a controversy, point of difference or newly emerging field within argumentative theory. You are to read the articles on this controversy/issue, then take a stance on the debate/discussion. Each set of readings will provide either clearly conflicting views on an issue or different ways to understand or conceptualize a part of argumentation theory. In writing the paper, you should begin with a clear introduction that makes a central argument about your position/stance on the controversy or issue. The remainder of the paper then provides the reasons why your stance is superior to the other positions taken by authors in readings. This does not mean that you must disagree with every author in the readings, but that you are clearly arguing against certain stances made in the readings. It is very likely that you could agree with 90% of the readings and your argument is simply a synthesizing of several readings that argues against one author’s view.
- Format: as mentioned, the papers must fall within a 4-5 page limit (please do not exceed that page limit). You do not need formal citations in your paper, but you must reference authors and their ideas within the paper. The paper should include a clear but concise introduction that clearly articulates your central argument/stance and a brief conclusion. The body of the paper should include arguments and reasons as to why your stance/central argument is superior to other stances/points of view or best helps us understand argument and argumentation. In making these arguments, assume that I am an informed reader, meaning that I have read the same articles as you. Thus, you do not need to review all of the articles, but instead use key ideas or arguments advanced in the readings to support your arguments. In writing these arguments in the body of the paper, the key is to make concise but reasoned or supported arguments. You may use very short examples, but do not get caught up in explaining examples at the expense of justifying your arguments.
- Criteria for grading: These reaction papers will be evaluated on the following criteria:
- Is there a clear argument made in the paper? (If a clear argument is not present, the student will receive no higher than a C on the paper).
- Does the paper demonstrate an understanding of the weekly readings?
- Are the arguments made in the paper coherent?
- Are the arguments made in the paper well support with explanation?
- Papers Due Date: Papers are always due at the beginning of the class period in which the readings are due. The papers will serve as the basis for class discussion.
- Special Note: all students are expected to write a reaction paper to the second week of readings on “What is Argument?” These sets of readings are foundational readings for the course and will inform a lot of our discussion during the semester.
2. Final Paper:
- Overview: Students are asked to write at 12-15 essay that focuses on or uses a particular controversy, concept or issue discussed in class. To complete the essay, students may select from one of three options:
- OPTION ONE: THEORY DEVELOPMENT--Select one of the controversies or disputes over theory or concepts in argumentation theory that we have discussed in class and develop a much more thorough and deeper analysis of the concept/argument. In doing so, provide a thorough review of literature about the dispute and/or concept. As in the reaction papers, you will provide an argument about your stance/view on this issue or theoretical concept and attempt to provide a new understanding of the concept or disputed idea that adds something to our understanding of argumentation theory.
- OPTION TWO: RHETORICAL ANALYSIS—utilizing concepts and theories discussed in class, students will analyze a particular text(s) and provide an analysis of the arguments within the text. Students may select from traditional argumentative analysis techniques (e.g., topoi, fallacies, logic, etc.) or more contemporary argumentative analysis approaches (e.g,, visual argument, argument as constitutive of identity, argument frames, etc.). The goal is find a rhetorical significant artifact and then, using argumentative analysis, present significant analysis and conclusions about the artifacts.
- OPTION THREE: CAMPAIGN ANALYSIS—utilizing concepts and theories discussed in class, students will select a particular persuasive campaign—including political, social movement, advertising or profit or nonprofit campaigns—and do an analysis of the effectiveness of the campaign’s arguments. Student should initially assess the effectiveness of the current campaign and make suggestions about how the campaign can improve or change its argumentative strategies or arguments.
- Format: the essay should be double-spaced and type-written. Students should follow the scholarly and writing guidelines outlined in the MLA Handbook or APA Handbook for writing. A works cited page is necessary. Future guidelines as to how to structure the paper will be given out in class later in the semester.
3. Research Paper Prospectus: Students will submit a 2-3 page prospectus describing the concept, text or campaign that they will be analyzing. The paper should: (1) Identify the concept, text or campaign; (2) justify the significance of examining the concept, text or campaign; and (3) provide a general idea of what the larger research paper will examine or argue. You will not be bound to this prospectus if you decide later to modify or change your text or arguments. Instead, this prospectus is meant to help students “flesh out” their ideas and to receive feedback from the instructor to assist in the final paper.
GRADING:
Grades will be based on:
1. 6 Reaction Papers—40% of final grade
2. Participation and attendance—10% of final grade
3. Final Essay Prospectus—10% of final grade
4. Final Essay—40% of final grade
READING SCHEDULE—WEEKLY SCHEDULE
THEORY OF ARGUMENT—FALL 2008
September 2 Introduction to course
September 9 “What are the primary differences between each perspective on Argumentation?”
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 1:
· Brockriede, “Where is Argument?”
· Van Eemeren & Houtlosser, “Pragma-Dialectical”
· Johnson & Blair, “Informal Logic”
· Frank, “Argumentation Studies”
From Blackboard:
· Benoit, “Traditional Concept of Argument”
September 16 “What is Argument?”
· From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 2:
o O’Keefe, “Two Concepts”
o Rowland, “On Defining Argument”
o Tindale, “A Concept Divided”
· From Blackboard:
o V. William Balthrop, “Argument as Linguistic Opportunity: A Search for Form and Function,” Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, 1979, Editors Jack Rhodes & Sara Newell, 1980, 184-213.
o Charles Willard, “A Reformulation of the Concept of Argument: The Constructivist/Interactionist Foundation of a Sociology of Argument,” Journal of the American Forensics Association, 1978, Vol 14, pp. 121-140.
September 23 What are the different elements or forms of arguments?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 3:
· Brockriede & Ehninger, “Toulmin on Argument”
From Blackboard:
· Hample, “Toulmin Model”
· Burleson, “On the Analysis & Criticism…”
· Kneupper, “Dramatism & Argument”
· Williard, “On the Utility”
September 30 Is Validity a good standard from which to evaluate argument? How should we define validity?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 4:
· Ehninger, “Validity as Moral Obligation”
· Farrell, “Validity and Rationality”
· Crosswhite, “Universality in Rhetoric”
From Blackboard:
· Glen E. Mills & Hugh G. Petrie, “The Role of Logic in Rhetoric,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 54 (Oct l968): 260-267.
· David Zarefsky, “’Reasonableness’ in Public Policy Arguments: Fields as Institutions,” Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, Editors George Ziegelmueller & Jack Rhodes, 1981, pp. 88-97.
October 7 How should we evaluate argument in light of the criticisms to normative standards of argument?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 5:
· Slob, “How to Distinquish Good and Bad”
· Orr, “Just the Facts Ma’am”
· Liu, “Justifying My Position”
· Siegel, “Argument quality”
From Blackboard:
· Charles Willard, “The Epistemic function of argument,” Journal of the American Forensics Association, Winter 1979, Vol 15, pp. 169-191.
October 14 How can the Argumentative Perspective be applied to criticize
rhetoric and speech?
Readings TBA
October 21 What are Argumentative Spheres & Fields? What is the difference between the two and what are their significance?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 6:
· Goodnight, “The Personal Technical & Public Spheres…”
· Willard, “The Creation of Publics”
· Asen, “Toward a Normative Conception of Difference”
From Blackboard:
· Hanson, “Argument Fields, Logical Types”
· Dudczak, “Categorizing Argument Fields”
October 28 What is the relationship between Argument Sphere and the health of democratic deliberation?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 6:
· Doxtader, “The Entwinement of Argument & Dialectial Reading of Habermas’ Theory of Comm Action”
· Hicks & Langsdorf, “Regulating Disagreement”
From Blackboard:
· Balthrop, “W(h)ither the Public Sphere?”
· Peters, “On the Natural Development of Public Activity”
· Dauber, “Fusion criticism: a call to criticism”
November 4 Can the Visual be Argumentative?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier Chapter 7:
· Birdsell & Groarke, “Theory of Visual Arg”
· Palczewski, “The Male Madonna”
From Blackboard:
· Fleming, “Can Pictures be Argumentative?”
· Finnegan, “Visual & Argumentation”
· Shelley, “Visual Argument & Demonstrative”
November 11 What role does argument have in relation to the Body & Identity?
From Aguayo & Steffensmeier, Chapter 7:
· DeLuca, “Unruly Arguments: The Body Rhetoric…”
From Blackboard:
· Kiewe, “Body as Proof”
· Ishiyama et al, “Russian Electoral Politics”
· Lake, “Argumentation & Self”
November 18 What is the significance and function of Definition in
argumentative situations?
From Blackboard:
· Selections from Edward Schiappa, Defining Reality: Definitions
· and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 2003.
· Brian R. McGee, “The Argument from Definition Revisited: Race and
· Definition in the Progressive Era,” Argumentation & Advocacy, Spring 1999, pp. 141-158.
· Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, “Finding Protection in Definitions: the Quest for Environmental Security,” Argumentation & Advocacy, Spring 1999, vol 35, pp. 159-170.
November 25 NO CLASS—Holiday Break
December 2 What is the future for the study of Argumentation?
From Blackboard:
· Zarefsky, “Future Directions in Argumentation”
· Hample, “Future Directions in Argumentation”
· Zarefsky, “Directions for Resarch in Argumentation Theory”
·
December 9 Recap and workshop for Essays
December 16 Final Essays presented and due
COM 7110—Young Fall 08—p. 1