On the origin of normative argumentation theory: The paradoxical case of the Rhetoric to Alexander

The Rhetoric to Alexander (second half of the fourth century B.C.) is among the oldest contributions to the study of argumentation. From antiquity on, this treatise, which abounds in opportunistic advice, has come under heavy criticism on normative grounds. And yet, as I shall maintain here, it clearly takes into account the requirements of rational argumentation which are still in use today. Moreover, it contains the seeds of a whole series of doctrines found in modern normative argumentation theory. There are reasonable grounds for maintaining that some of these modern doctrines stem indirectly from the tradition to which the Rhetoric to Alexander belongs.     

Social epistemology as a rhetoric of inquiry

Fuller's program of social epistemology engages a rhetoric of inquiry that can be usefully compared and contrasted with other discursive theories of knowledge, such as that of Richard Rorty. Resisting the model of conversation, Fuller strikes an activist posture and lays the groundwork for normative knowledge policy, in which persuasion and credibility play key roles. The image of investigation is one that overtly rejects the storehouse conception of knowledge and invokes the metaphors of distributive economics. Productive questions arise as to how notions of creation and distribution might guide this rhetoric.     

Public Debate – An Act of Hostility?

This paper focuses on eristic in political debate of the forensic, or confrontational, type. First, some findings on the enactment and persuasiveness of hostility in a series of Danish TV-debates 1975–85 are presented, including a list of the clearly hostile debater's characteristics and a subdivision of conspiracy arguments. This presentation serves to illustrate that hostility is less persuasive than argumentation practitioners and theorists tend to assume. Next, the widespread notion of debate as a genre half-way between the quarrel and the critical discussion is challenged in a discussion of Douglas N. Walton's distinction between types of dialogue. It is maintained that the normative model of confrontational debate excludes the quarrel and that debate should not be perceived as second-rate critical discussion.     

Developing Cross-Cultural Competence with Traditional Chinese Americans in Family Therapy: Background Information and the Initial Therapeutic Contact

This paper presents an overview of Chinese American history, cultural values, family dynamics, traditional beliefs concerning psychological and interpersonal problems, and help seeking behaviors. Recommendations are given to family therapists in making initial contact with the more traditionally-oriented Chinese Americans.     

Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing

This paper joins the voices warning against hasty transference of legal concepts of presumption to other kinds of argumentation, especially to deliberation about future acts and policies. Comparison of the pragmatics which respectively constitute the illocutionary acts of accusing and proposing reveals important differences in the ways presumptions prompt accusers and proposers to undertake probative responsibilities and, also, points to corresponding differences in their probative duties. This comparison has theoretically important implication regarding the norms governing persuasive argumentation. The paper is based on a broadly Gricean account of speech acts.     

指向具体人物对象的人际信任:跨文化比较及其认知模型

本文对指向具体人物对象的人际信任作了跨文化实证比较研究,并探讨了人际信任的认知模型。使用人际信任行为量表(ITBS)测量了中国、香港及美国三地大学生的人际信任。根据三组被试对诸如父亲、哥哥、同班同学、医生和陌生人等20个人们生活中经常能够接触的人物信任程度的高低,可将这些具体人物对象归为“亲人”,“熟人”和“陌生人”三个群体。三组被试对“亲人”群体的人际信任没有显著差异,但中国被试对其它两个人物对象群体的信任要高于美国和香港被试,而后两组被试的差别则不显著。另外,利用多元回归法在人际信任与六种认知变量间建立了模型关系,发现其中只有两个变量对模型作出主要贡献,即:(1)对由信任行为而得到得回报的期望值越高;(2)得不到回报而引致损害的严重性评估越低,则一个人作出某一信任行为的可能性就越大。被试的文化背景和社会工业化程度对人际信任认知模型没有影响。     

The social environments of early infancy in Japan and the United States

The social environments of early infancy in Japan and the United States were compared in terms of the context of caregiving and the quality of the month-infant interaction. Mothers of 17 Japanese infants and 17 infants in the United States were interviewed in their homes about the experiences that they provided for their 4-month-old infants, and mother-infant interactions were recorded on videotape. Levels of parents' education were similar in both countries. The context of the infant's development varied substantially with culture. Mothers in the United States provided a greater variety of experiences on the HOME and care of Japanese infants tended to be more exclusively provided by mothers whereas care of infants in the United States was shared by fathers and other caregivers to a greater extent. Examination of behaviour frequencies during mother-infant interaction indicated that mothers in Japan provided their infants with more vocal input and more physical play than mothers in the United States and Japanese mothers were more vocally responsive to their infants' vocalizations.     

Reasoning Dialogues

When people argue with others in conversation, they make a variety of conversational moves: They make claims, ask for justification of others' claims, attack claims, and attack claims' justifications. The arrangement of these moves gives argumentation its characteristic shape. This article illustrates a proposed format for conversations of this type, and it reviews some findings about the way people understand and evaluate these conversations. The findings suggest that judgments of the arguers' burden depend not only on the content of their claims, but also on the conversation's structure. In addition, judgments of the strength of a justification—an arguer's evidence or explanation—are a function of the argument's setting.     

Justifying My Position in Your Terms: Cross-cultural Argumentation in a Globalized World

A community of minds has long been presumed to be a condition of possibility for genuine argumentative interactions. In part because of this disciplinary presupposition, argumentation scholars tend to exclude from their scope of inquiry conflict resolution among culturally heterogeneous and ideologically incompatible formations. Such a stance needs to be reexamined in view of recent developments in the on-going process of globalization. The unprecedented worldwide economic and financial integration has created for the first time a generalized interest across national and continental boundaries. The need to countercheck global market forces has given rise to calls for a global legal/ethical system or even a transnational public sphere. Non-Western interlocutors in general are willing to debate cross-cultural issues in Western terms. Increasingly, Western interlocutors are also seeking to justify Western positions in non-Western terms. This emerging situation renders it both necessary and possible to argue across the boundaries of communities that do not share the same cultural or rhetorical tradition. It also poses a host of theoretical and practical issues whose exploration and analysis should become a new focus of argumentation studies.