Affiliation:
1. Department of Communication, University of Copenhagen
Abstract
ABSTRACT
Speakers may argue in ways that facilitate cooperation, without really establishing unity. If emphasis is put on the word “composite” in composite audience, then the complementary act of addressing such an audience can be understood as an orchestration of different people, who may cooperate toward a conclusion. This brings attention to the multidimensionality of issues in pluralistic communities and the range of consequences proposals may have. Following Perelman’s and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s New Rhetoric, I discuss how the compositeness of such argumentation can be fruitfully approached pluralistically. I argue that proposals on practical issues imply concomitant situations, wherein audiences are assigned different roles to play toward the ends of argumentation. This means that rhetorical argumentation performs implicit diplomacy, with implications for different audiences and the relationships between them. I conclude this article by discussing what this pluralistic and interactional account means for the analysis and evaluation of arguments and their rhetoric.
Publisher
The Pennsylvania State University Press
Reference24 articles.
1. “The Case of the Midnight Judges’ and Multiple Audience Discourse: Chief Justice Marshall and Marbury V. Madison.”;Southern Journal of Communication,1994
2. “Rethinking the Rhetorical Situation from within the Thematic of ‘Différance.’”;Philosophy & Rhetoric,1989
3. “Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s ‘On Temporality as a Characteristic of Argumentation’: Commentary and Translation.”;Philosophy & Rhetoric,2010