I argue that the audience’s active role in argumentation can be understood in terms of inferential contributions to the argumentative situation. I discuss two aspects of the argumentative situation that I claim must be inferentially established by the audience: exigence and ethos. I also examine how certain features of argument context, such as the medium of argumentation, constrain the audience’s inferential contributions in ways that can either help or hinder constructive argumentation.status: publishe
Abstract What are we doing when we make inferences? I argue that to make an inference is to attach i...
This experimental study explored the effects of different levels (imagined audience vs. interactive ...
Finally, whether much can be said in general about contexts is an interesting, significant, and open...
Without audiences there would be no rhetorical argumentation. Without audiences there would be no rh...
Abstract: This paper challenges the view that arguments are (by definition, as it were) attempts to ...
In rhetoric and argumentation research studies of empirical audiences are rare. Most studies are spe...
When people argue in a specific context, they usually know exactly how to do that. The social knowle...
It is well known that argumentation can usefully be analysed as a distinct, if complex, type of spee...
International audienceHaving defended the usefulness of our definition of reasoning, we stress that ...
While the inferential dimension of ethos has been studied extensively, its relationship with multimo...
This chapter discusses how formal models of argumentation can clarify philosophical problems and iss...
International audienceIn studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically fo...
This paper attempts to integrate an agnotological taxonomy of “not-knowing” with argumentation theor...
International audienceReasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better de...
There is much that is objectionable and suspect in Shell's magazine advertorial, "Clear Th...
Abstract What are we doing when we make inferences? I argue that to make an inference is to attach i...
This experimental study explored the effects of different levels (imagined audience vs. interactive ...
Finally, whether much can be said in general about contexts is an interesting, significant, and open...
Without audiences there would be no rhetorical argumentation. Without audiences there would be no rh...
Abstract: This paper challenges the view that arguments are (by definition, as it were) attempts to ...
In rhetoric and argumentation research studies of empirical audiences are rare. Most studies are spe...
When people argue in a specific context, they usually know exactly how to do that. The social knowle...
It is well known that argumentation can usefully be analysed as a distinct, if complex, type of spee...
International audienceHaving defended the usefulness of our definition of reasoning, we stress that ...
While the inferential dimension of ethos has been studied extensively, its relationship with multimo...
This chapter discusses how formal models of argumentation can clarify philosophical problems and iss...
International audienceIn studying how lay people evaluate arguments, psychologists have typically fo...
This paper attempts to integrate an agnotological taxonomy of “not-knowing” with argumentation theor...
International audienceReasoning is generally seen as a means to improve knowledge and make better de...
There is much that is objectionable and suspect in Shell's magazine advertorial, "Clear Th...
Abstract What are we doing when we make inferences? I argue that to make an inference is to attach i...
This experimental study explored the effects of different levels (imagined audience vs. interactive ...
Finally, whether much can be said in general about contexts is an interesting, significant, and open...