Thirteenth Biennial Argumentation Conference, Wake Forest University, March 19-21, 2010.

Keynote Speakers: Carole Blair and William Balthrop, University of North Carolina; Lenore Langsdorf, Southern Illinois University; Frans van Eemeren, University of Amsterdam, and Carol Winkler, Georgia State University. Workshops: Pragma-Dialectical Analysis and Evaluation of Argumentative Discourse Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen, Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric, University of Amsterdam This workshop consists of a series of four sessions. The aim of the workshop is to provide insight in pragma-dialectical argumentation analysis and evaluation. For this purpose, the workshop concentrates in the first place on the reconstruction of argumentative discourse and the identification of fallacies, not only in everyday discourse, but also in political and academic discourse. First, the basic principles are explained that are instrumental in analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. In the process, methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, argumentation structures and argument schemes in oral and written discourse. Next, the problems are discussed of critically evaluating various types of discourse from a dialectical perspective. Finally, it is made clear how combining dialectical and rhetorical insight enables the analyst to identify the strategic maneuvering by which arguers try to see through their own standpoints in argumentative discours while at the same time upholding a commitment to reasonableness. The fallacies are then viewed as derailments of such strategic maneuvering. How to Study Interpersonal Arguing Dale Hample and Ioana A. Cionea, Department of Communication, University of Maryland The bulk of research on argumentation has been conducted from rhetorical or philosophical perspectives, which both make use of humanistic methodologies. Since about 1980, however, social science methods have also been applied, particularly to interpersonal arguing. This approach makes use of self-report scales, coding systems, and quantitative analysis. The purpose of this workshop is to provide participants with an introduction to the general project of studying interpersonal arguing, and to explore many of the leading instruments used in the community project. The workshop will be oriented to people who are not primarily social scientists in their approach to argumentation studies. We will begin with a general meta-theoretical overview of interpersonal arguing. We will briefly explain that interpersonal arguing can be seen as occurring in three phases: argument production, the public argument, and argument reception. This overview intends to establish a context for the various instruments and methods covered in the bulk of the workshop. Argument production methodologies include self-report measures of various personality traits, cognitive abilities, and cognitive processes. The public argument will be approached from the viewpoint of conversation/discourse analysis and pragma-dialectics, as well as some self-report and behavioral measures of emotional and other experiences. Argument reception, perhaps the least studied of the three phases, will be covered in reference to argumentative competence and some standard persuasion measures. Cultural assessment instruments and some others do not fall neatly into one of the three phases, but these instruments and some other techniques will also be covered. Argumentation, Intervention, and Democratic Invention: Rethinking the Ends of Rhetorical Scholarship Cindy Spurlock and Scott Welsh, Department of Communication, Appalachian State University Democratic deliberation and the politics of everyday life call the art of rhetoric into being. Yet, prevailing modes of rhetorical scholarship largely end in the production of personal works of academic criticism rather than in the production of publicly useable rhetorical resources. This workshop aims to collaboratively pursue new or revised approaches to the study of rhetoric that might promote the invention of the rhetorical moves and maneuvers necessary to sustaining and advancing democracy in the face of anti-democratic argumentative commonplaces. Put simply, the motivating question is: How can a critical study of rhetoric be reconnected to the art of rhetoric? More specifically, participants in this workshop will explore the question of whether and/or how an interventionist orientation toward theory and criticism may enable, constrain, or otherwise affect the development of argumentative strategies and resources for rhetorical invention that are accessible to (and able to address) publics. The Relationship between Argument and Culture: What do we know about differences and similarities across cultures and what do we need to know? Michael David Hazen, Department of Communication, Wake Forest University Information to be provided. Visit the conference website here: http://www.wfu.edu/communication/argumentation/index.php.