Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MICHAEL A. GILBERT
York University
The main stream of formal and informal logic as well as more recent work in
discourse analysis provides a way of understanding certain arguments that
particularly lend themselves to rational analysis. I argue, however, that these,
and allied modes of analysis, be seen as heuristic models and not as the only
proper mode of argument. This article introduces three other modes of argumentation that emphasize distinct aspects of human communication, but that, at the
same time, must be considered for the full understanding of argumentation.
These modes are (1) the emotional, which relates to the realm of feelings, (2) the
visceral, which stems from the area of the physical, and (3) the kisceral, which
covers the intuitive and non-sensory arenas. At its most extreme the view holds
that arguments may be given (almost) wholly within one mode and not be at all
susceptible to those methods of argument analysis previously used. A more
cautious statement allows that any interactive argument will (possibly) contain
elements from various modes, and that to attempt to reduce these all to the
rational is prejudiced reductionism.
personal and social&dquo; (p. 186), and, on the other, that &dquo;different traditions of knowing... offer differing patterns of inter-referentiality;
arguments are built upon these patterns&dquo; (p. 188). In other words,
...
159-177
Publication, Inc.
159
160
patterns of argument may differ from field to field, but the essential
patterns are less than wildly variant. It is still the &dquo;system of argument&dquo; that
man
&dquo;argument.&dquo;
These assumptions have remained well entrenched despite several
assaults on their legitimacy. One such assault comes from one of the
acknowledged founders of contemporary argumentation theory,
Chaim Perelman. Perelman argued, in The New Rhetoric (Perelman
and Olbrechts-Tyteca 1969) and in numerous later works, that rhetoric
must be construed not
as an
as
that aspect of
161
and still maintain that arguments are exhaustively or uniquely linguistic communications. (p. 191)
162
163
opinion?
Is
164
Hereafter, the
&dquo;rational&dquo;
dialectical
merely a respect for orderliness of presentation, but also a subscription to a certain set of beliefs about evidence and sources of information. Arguments, as Toulmin (1969) pointed out, include not only
165
feeling,
166
Example 1. John and Mary are having an argument about their vacation plans. Mary is frustrated by Johns repeatedly saying of her suggestions, &dquo;We cant afford that.&dquo; Finally, with some heat, she says, &dquo;It
doesnt sound like we can afford anything.&dquo; Johns face clouds over; he
looks sad and embarrassed. He turns away forlornly, head hanging
down.
John offering an argument, a response to an argument, or performing any argumentative move? I say that he is, and that it is offered
in the emotional mode, and that to merely reduce it to linguistic terms is
to negate both the method and purpose (conscious or not) of the move.
Is
167
168
Having explicated these basic notions and laid out my basal assumption, it is necessary to turn to the specific exemplification of the
four modes of argument. To begin with an example that is apparently
in the logical mode, and, indeed, follows an identifiable logical pattem is presented.
Example 2. Harry held a finger over his lips to signal for silence. He
pointed to the door with his revolver. &dquo;Hes in there,&dquo; he said to Jane.
&dquo;How can you be sure?&dquo; she queried.
&dquo;He had to take the left or right door before, and they both lead into
that room there.&dquo;
follows.
Example 3. AvB,A~C,Bi3C)-C
In (2), let A stand for &dquo;he took the right door,&dquo; B for &dquo;he took the
left door,&dquo; and C for &dquo;hes in that room.&dquo; Without too much difficulty
we can see the connection between (2) and (3). This is helpful in
understanding the persuasive force of Harrys argument. Given, as
we witnessed, that Jane accepted the three premises, she was persuaded that their man had to be in the room. That then, is the
argument. But, in reality, a great deal more occurred in this argument
than its formalization shows. Harrys relation to Jane, his apparent
knowledge of their surroundings, her lack of objection or rejoinder,
the participants likely fear and/or tension in being in a dangerous
situation all compose significant parts of the interaction. Still, the
argument does lend itself to a linear, rational mode of analysis.
A second, less formally exact, but still highly logical example is as
follows.
Shana: Lets go over to the Bijou and see that new film.
Zack: Nah, its almost eight, and its always packed there by now.
Example 4.
169
and pointing to the clock, the argument would still be in the same
mode. In other words, being verbal or non-verbal is not in itself either a
necessary or sufficient determination of mode.
It is now necessary to present examples of arguments in the three
alternative modes. These examples purport to show that there are
arguments where the sources of information, that is, warrant and
backing, and/or mode of presentation are essentially non-logical,
and, at the same time, are still dearly components of the argument.
Before presenting them, however, it is important to reiterate that no
claim is being made for exclusivity. It is unlikely that any argument is
purely in one mode, and it is practically certain that any argument can
be twisted out of its natural shape and into some arbitrary mode. This
said, an example of an argument from the emotional mode follows.
Example 6.
170
171
Two modes of argument have so far been discussed. Logical arguon an appeal to the linear patterns that lead us from
one statement, or set of statements, to a claim. These arguments are
linguistic, dialectical, and classically identified as serial predications.
Emotional arguments demonstrate how we feel about certain claims
or aspects of the argumentation procedure, and communicate emotional reactions through a variety of means to a dispute partner. In
addition, emotions are sometimes used as warrants or data for claims.
A third category of argumentation stemming from, and appealing to, conceptually distinct sources is the visceral. These arguments are primarily physical and can range from a touch to classical
non-verbal communication, that is, body language, to force. Consider
ments are based
the following.
Mary goes to the kitchen cupboard and begins searching all around.
She seems to gives up, but then gets the step-stool and begins rummaging through the upper shelves of the cupboard. John notices, but, busy
with his shrimp, does not say anything. After a bit, Mary climbs down,
goes over to John, stands very dose, and holds out a can of curry &dquo;Are
you sure you dont want to add just a little curry powder?&dquo; John looks
from Mary to the can of powder, and says, &dquo;Well, yeah, sure, okay&dquo;
embracing the aphorism that actions speak louder than words, she
showed how important she thought the curry was. Marys rummaging
through the cupboards, climbing about, and putting a good deal of
effort into finding the curry powder was a crucial part of her argument. It was her physical actions that comprised the argument, and
comprised them in a way that precludes translation into the linguistic,
logical mode. That is, while we can certainly linguistically describe the
argument (as I just did), it is not the description that convinced John
to change his mind, but Marys behavior. Had Mary said to John, &dquo;I
really have a yen for curry tonight, wont you please add some,&dquo; the
encounter, while perhaps not the logically most sophisticated argument, would certainly be an argument. Even if it were classed as an
ad misericordiam on the grounds of Marys yearning, its status as an
172
argument would not be disputed. Consequently, the non-verbal anaalso be so categorized. Every argumentation scholar,
after all, agrees that linguistic explicitness is not a necessary condition
of an argument. After all, any argument can be enthymematic. I am
logue should
further in
saying
Example 8. Mr. Burns entered his house and slammed the door behind
him. Mrs. Bums looked up warily. &dquo;Where,&dquo; Mr. Burns railed, &dquo;is the
damn newspaper?&dquo; Mrs. Burns went over to the foyer hat stand where
the paper lay as always.
&dquo;You seem very tense, dear. Did you have bad day?&dquo;
Mr. Burns glared at her. &dquo;No,&dquo; he snarled, &dquo;I did not have a bad day,
and I am not tense.&dquo; Mrs. Bums watched as he went and fell into his
chair. She waited a minute, then came up behind him and began to
gently rub his shoulders. At first he tried to flinch her off, but slowly
Mrs. Burns felt him give way as his muscles relaxed.
&dquo;Well,&dquo; Mr. Burns said after several minutes, &dquo;maybe I am a little
tense.&dquo;
Mrs. Bums, like Mary in example
not to have a logical argument with Mr. Burns. She knew well enough
that continuing the argument on a verbal level would lead to naught
or worse. Nonetheless, it was important to her to persuade him that
he was, indeed, tense. Her argument was a directly visceral one,
173
perspective and admit her insights. In fact, the only reason for denying its status as an argument is that it is not linguistic, and to do that
is to beg the entire question. Only by assuming in the first place that
all arguments are ultimately linguistic, or even &dquo;linguistically expressible,&dquo; to use OKeefes (1982) expression, can one prove that
there are no non-linguistic arguments.
One more brief example in the visceral mode.
Example 9. Diane is about to reach for the window crank to open the
kitchen window.
&dquo;Dont touch that!&dquo; Michael calls, &dquo;its broken.&dquo;
Diane looks at him skeptically, starts to turn the handle, then jumps
back as the window comes crashing down at her feet. She looks back
at Michael and says, &dquo;Hm, I guess you were right.&dquo;
In this case, as for example in
174
Example 11.
&dquo;No, I got
down.&dquo;
&dquo;But it was such a good price!&dquo;
&dquo;I dont care if theyre giving it away. It gave me the creeps.&dquo;
175
176
NOTES
1. Clearly arguments can proceed non-verbally, compare Willard (1989, 96ff.). The
question is whether we must be able to verbalize them on demand.
2. I take the liberty of introducing a new term here in order to afford sufficient
breadth without at the same time using terminology generally in disrepute. That is, the
kisceral covers not only the intuitive but also, for those who indulge, the mystical,
religious, supernatural, and extra-sensory. "Kisceral" is chosen in order to have a
descriptive term that does not carry with it normative baggage, like, for example,
"mystical" or "extra-sensory."
3. By this I simply mean that the rationalist is usually very good at recasting any
purportedly non-rational experience into a rational one. Indeed, whole clubs of rationalists band together to do just this. A book entitled How We Know What Isnt So, by
Gilovich (1991), for example, is completely devoted to an attack on such beliefs as ESP
REFERENCES
Balthrop, Bill. 1980. Argument as linguistic opportunity: A search for form and function. In Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, edited by J. Rhodes
and S. Newell.
Burleson, Brant.
Dillard, James P.
OKeefe, D. J. 1977. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association 13:121-28.
Advances in argumentation theory
—. 1982. The concepts of argument and arguing. In
& research, edited by Cox and Willard, 3:23.
Perelman, C. 1979. The new rhetoric and the humanities. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel.
Perelman, C., & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric. South Bend, IN: University
of Notre Dame Press (orig Fr. 1958).
Rhodes, J. and S. Newell eds. 1980. Proceedings of the Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association/ American Forensic Association.
Toulmin, Stephen. 1969. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
177
van