Date of Award
2002
Publication Type
Master Thesis
Degree Name
M.A.
Department
Philosophy
Keywords
Philosophy.
Supervisor
Blair, J. A.
Rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 International License.
Abstract
This thesis addresses whether it is a mistake to limit the traditional conception of argument to that which is explicitly verbalized. Frans H. Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst's Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation (1984, 1992, 1993) is used as an exemplar of the verbal-oriented approach, since it is recognized as being influential in the field of argumentation. A challenge is presented to the theory by introducing and discussing two modes of argumentation that tend to divert from the use of language, specifically the visual and the emotional. A "visual argument" gets its strength primarily from a visual image. A visual argument makes a claim of some sort and has a reason or reasons for that claim. Plus, the argument is both communicated to an audience and is linguistically explicable. Four types of emotional argumentation are discussed. They are: (1) emotions used to express an argument, (2) an emotion used as a reason for an argumentative claim, (3) an arguer appealing to the emotions of an audience, and (4) an arguer inducing an emotion in her audience. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
Recommended Citation
Carozza, Linda., "Traditional argumentation broadened." (2002). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 4412.
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/4412