Abstract Enthymemes are arguments that are not fully articulated, often omitting a connection between premise and conclusion but sometimes also other information that is crucial for their interpretation. This implicitness poses challenges for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. We use the concept of “argument form” as employed in the argument classification framework of the Periodic Table of Arguments to address this issue. By developing an algorithmic procedure grounded in this concept, we provide a method for explicating missing statements and connections condensed in enthymemes. Our approach contributes to understanding the pragmatics of argumentation, as it offers a formal framework for analysing how the interpretation of implicit elements in argumentation arises from apparent non-sequiturs. The algorithmic procedure we developed can function as a guideline for human annotation of argumentative discourse and is also suitable for implementation in (AI-assisted) annotation software for argument mining.

The aim of this paper is to distinguish some varieties of what I call ‘comparison argumentation.’ This way of arguing consists of supporting a claim about one thing on the basis of a comparison of that thing with another. The criteria that I use are the subject, the degree, and the purpose of the comparison. I do not intend to be exhaustive, but to address two specific questions: what sets arguments by analogy apart within this category and, from there, how they can be evaluated based on their distinctive features. An important aspect of my approach is the analysis of cases. I have selected a relatively large corpus of examples, mainly from the news media, and will analyse them based on argumentative connectors and other conventional indicators of comparisons.

This paper investigates the relationship between practical argumentation (PA) and Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST). PA is argumentation providing justification for an agent’s action. PA has been described in terms of a three-level structure composed of practical, evaluative, and classificatory argumentation schemes. RST is a linguistic theory that models the hierarchical structure of monological discourse in terms of discourse coherence relations. RST’s Motivation relation is intended to increase an agent’s inclination to perform some action. Our investigative approach was to analyze argumentation schemes of PA in examples of RST involving Motivation and to analyze RST structure for texts that have been used as examples of PA. The results of the investigation show uses, not only of Motivation, but also RST’s Antithesis, Concession, Evaluation, and Solutionhood. In some cases the RST analysis reflects the layered composition of argumentation schemes of PA.

This article explores how Peter Santenello’s Border Series, viewed more than ninety million times on YouTube, depicts U.S. migration in the early 2020s. After years abroad as a travel vlogger, Santenello returned to the United States determined to show the country from the ground up, arguing that mainstream outlets overlook crucial realities. His Border Series is part of this turn. Through close readings of selected episodes, the paper identifies three recurring rhetorical patterns in his coverage of migration to the U.S. First, Santenello’s hand-held camera gains entry to police trucks, farm fields, hotels, and desert contacts to the mainstream representations which are considered to be politically biased. Second, each video functions as a “third space” where roles remain fluid: migrants appear as commodities or humanitarian cases, sheriffs shift from protectors to reluctant aid workers, and viewers assign these labels through real-time debate. Third, Santenello’s civic-traveler style combines storytelling with witnessing; by rejecting the journalist label yet featuring multiple viewpoints, he widens the circle of voices that narrate the border and resists classical media framing. Taken together, these patterns show that digital, personality-driven reporting is remapping migration discourse, turning contested ground into a shared arena for seeing and arguing.

The article analyzes the rhetorical strategy of the public health campaign “Stop udarom” (Stop Strokes), treating it as an example of health communication within the framework of Rhetoric of Health and Medicine (RHM). The aim of the study is to examine how the campaign employs classical persuasive appeals - ethos, logos, and pathos - to guide the audience through three stages of communication: conveying knowledge, eliciting emotion, and motivating action. The analysis shows how various modes of expression, formats, and linguistic devices serve persuasive functions. The study contributes to the growing body of research on the rhetoric of health discourse and may serve as a reference point for the design of future preventive campaigns.

ABSTRACT For Richard McKeon (1975), the relationships between Greek dialectics and dialogue and rhetoric involve the “fruitful interplay of controversy and agreement,” and he judges this interplay to be the contribution that Greek dialectic makes to Western history and thought. Thus, he promises to enrich ongoing challenges of diversity, involving his own ideas on pluralism. This article reflects on and furthers that thinking, connecting early Greek insights on the concepts here identified with the post-McKeon debate on deep disagreement in argumentation.

ABSTRACT On closely reading the Aristotelian-Ciceronian-Kantian-inflected essay “The Uses of Rhetoric in a Technological Age: Architectonic Productive Arts,” Richard McKeon’s 1970 Wingspread Conference address presciently sketches a new rhetoric that is no longer about the approval of an already formed opinion, the steering of public beliefs, or political influence, but rather about dealing with new problems. Showing the “art of discovery, invention and creativity” in action, his inimitable combination of ethos (trust), pathos (emotion), and logos (structure) opens the way to the perception of new facts and previously unnoticed structures and processes, particularly when read in conjunction with the vicissitudes of the relation between words and numbers, the verbal and the numeral across a historically changing trajectory that culminated in the constituted and constitutive force of all pervasive AI digitality. Considering its “inhuman” expansion, the article’s focus on the logos of techne opens a path toward a historical assessment of humankind’s digitally framed existence.

It is a mere fifty-five years since the bulk of the New Rhetoric Project (NRP) was presented to English-speaking (and -reading) audiences in the John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver 1969 translation. Not long in the grand scheme of things, but long enough for certain orthodoxies to become established in the literature. We know, for example, that this was a return to Aristotle to recover ideas that had long been lost and that would undergird the logic of value.1 And we know that the “Universal Audience” is a problematic and confused idea. But such received ideas are what this collection of essays challenges.If there has been a rhetorical turn in argumentation theory (Bolduc 2020, 9), then that turn has safely been traced to the 1958 publication of Le Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique (henceforth, the Traité), and the coincidental appearance of Stephen Toulmin’s Uses of Argument in the same year. Subsequent to the Traité’s publication, its authors, Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, expended considerable efforts in publicizing its main themes and ideas through a series of short papers in different languages, and Perelman’s single-authored précis of the larger tome, L’empire (1977), found an immediate readership among audiences—often students, for whom the larger work was deemed too unwieldy.That dissemination aside, the need for such a collection as the one now under review arises in part because of the “errors” that have found their way into the literature, but also because the Wilkinson and Weaver English translation lacks the scholarly apparatus that would provide commentary on ideas and explain the cultural background to the concerns that arise. For example, the Traité makes continuous reference to European writers of the day with which later, non-European, audiences will be unfamiliar. And beyond this, there is a growing interest in the history of the NRP: the ideas and influences that led Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca to develop one of the most important projects in the history of rhetorical theory. Their rhetorical turn in argumentation, identifying the centrality of audience adherence to theses through the development of a range of argumentation schemes and rhetorical strategies, has fascinating antecedents in Perelman’s early philosophical thinking. To this end, Michelle Bolduc and David Frank’s expressed goal is to translate the most significant texts that remain in French and to correct current mistranslations. This collection contributes to that goal.The book comprises seven essays, along with introductions and commentaries from Bolduc and Frank. Five of the essays are by Perelman alone, and the other two were written in collaboration with Olbrechts-Tyteca, including the centerpiece, “Logique et rhétorique” (1950).One of the fascinating aspects of this volume is the insights it provides into Perelman’s own development as a thinker, especially a rhetorical thinker, independent of his work with Olbrechts-Tyteca. The five essays with his sole authorship range over twenty years, from the early thirties to the early fifties, and include one of his first publications, “De l’arbitraire dans la connaissance” (On the Arbitrary in Knowledge, 1933), published when he was only twenty-one years old. Here we have a young philosopher establishing his ideas against the dominance of logical positivism, insisting that values do not lie outside of reason. Value judgments, he argues, belong to the realm of the arbitrary, or nonnecessary, and are opposed to necessary truth judgments. This inaugurates an important, positive pluralism, as it is to the underlying realm of the arbitrary that we need to turn for human knowledge.In this essay, Perelman addresses the difficulty of imagining the other. It is not enough to put ourselves in the place of another person; “we must imagine ourselves living in another time, in another context, educated differently, with a different background. This is much more difficult” (44). We might detect here an emerging appreciation of the importance of audience as well as the roots of his conception of the Universal Audience. This is also the paper, as Bolduc and Frank point out, in which we see the first discussion of the technique of dissociation that will play so central a role in the argumentative strategies of the NRP that reconfigure the way reality appears to us (31). It is through this technique, we might recall, that concepts are modified and revalued after an incompatibility in their use develops in society.Two essays on the Jewish question, “Réflexions sur l’assimilation” (1935) and “La Question juive” (1946), occupy the focus of chapter 2. Beyond providing a sense of the cultural background against which Perelman’s ideas were developing, it tells us something about his political and cultural affiliations. Perelman was a “political Zionist” who lived through the Holocaust and the establishment of the state of Israel, and his allegiance to Belgium kept him rooted in Europe, although throughout his life he worked in a number of capacities on behalf of Belgium Jews. The essay also shows that he saw his theoretical ideas having importance for the world that was developing around him. And in the remarks on antisemitism, we begin to see Perelman’s recognition of the significance of groups and how they operate in opposition to each other.A fourth essay, “Philosophies premières et philosophie régressive” (1949), receives an updated commentary and translation from the version Bolduc and Frank published in 2003 in Philosophy & Rhetoric and is here given its place in the emerging NRP story. The importance of this essay in Perelman’s development has been noted before. It introduces his conception of regressive philosophy in its opposition to a tradition of first philosophies, including Aristotle’s. In this essay, we also see more clearly the move to rhetoric as the importance of a rhetorical logic (the logic of regressive philosophy) is stressed. Unlike the dogmatism of first philosophy, with its goals of absolute and necessary knowledge, regressive philosophy champions what earlier was seen in the domain of the arbitrary. It returns thought to its human roots in human contexts. Thus, rhetorical logic, in the words of the commentary, “requires commitment and responsibility because it provides the guide for human action” (97).The last of Perelman’s essays, “Raison éternelle, raison historique” (1952), provides further details of his expanded sense of reason. He sees in Aristotle the license to develop a model of nonformal reason, but one that has Perelman’s own distinct features. His rhetorical definition of reason is rooted in human experience (time), action, and judgment. This is a conception of reason that will start to appear familiar to readers of The New Rhetoric.This is also one of the essays that clarifies details surrounding what has become one of the more difficult concepts associated with the NRP, that of the Universal Audience. As readers may appreciate, the literature is filled with readings (and perhaps misreadings) of this central idea as scholars struggle to understand it. The problem was such that Perelman himself was still trying to clarify matters late in his career (Perelman 1984). Bolduc and Frank put the confusions partly down to the Wilkinson and Weaver translation (12). Whatever the cause, there is material here to set readers down the right path. Reacting to the rather feckless audiences imagined by Aristotle in his Rhetoric, Perelman promotes audiences that are “no longer constituted by a crowd of ignorant people, but by the subject himself when it is a matter of inner deliberation or, during a discussion, by an individual interlocutor, or by what we could call the Universal Audience, formed by all reasonable humans, during the presentation of a thesis whose validity should be universally recognized” (170). Accepting that we understand “validity” here in the nonformal sense in which it is employed in the NRP, then we have a clear statement of the three audiences that will become important for Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca.The Universal Audience is not a “blank slate,” but accepts facts, values, and argumentative techniques. This audience represents “incarnate reason,” but is not provided by experience alone because it always begins with an extrapolation from “the actual adherence of certain individuals.” Thus, Perelman concludes, “We posit that the theses attributed to this audience can vary in time, that they are not impersonal but rather dependent on the person who declares them, and on the milieu and the culture which shaped him” (170–71). Thus, we see changes in the understanding of what is reasonable influencing the way people argue at different times and in different places about, say, the value to be accorded to the physically disadvantaged or about those to whom the category of “person” should be extended. This is indeed the Universal Audience that can be extracted from The New Rhetoric, but its nature is expressed far clearer in Bolduc and Frank’s new translation.The remaining two essays are authored by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca together. “De la temporalité comme caractère de l’argumentation,” from 1958, develops some of the insights in Perelman’s earlier essay on historical reason. Because time plays no role in demonstration, its importance is pronounced when we turn to argumentation. The nature and logic of argument cannot escape its history, the demands of the present, and future consequences. Here is another way in which reason informs the human condition, grounding thought in the experience of self and others and our relation to the world.It is, however, the other coauthored paper (identified as their first collaboration), “Logique et rhétorique,” from 1950, that is the most valuable essay in the collection, in terms of its anticipation of the NRP and illumination of ideas found there. It constitutes chapter 4 of the book, aptly titled “The Debut of the New Rhetoric Project.”We gain a better sense here, for example, of how Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca consider the relationship between persuasion and conviction, which can be another point of confusion in The New Rhetoric. For many scholars, and for figures such as Kant, conviction is the stronger mental state. But the authors of the NRP allow that the relationship can be reversed, a position rarely seen since Richard Whately (1963, 175). They write,True to the focus on values and action, persuasion is the conversion of conviction into action; a position or claim that is judged as correct, to which there is adherence, is personalized as it informs the behavior of the audience.Also, in accordance with its title, this article announces the importance of rhetoric for the authors and clarifies their understanding of this concept in relation to their predecessors’ views. Rhetoric differs from logic in its concern with adherence. Hence the important, but revised sense, of persuasion. As Bolduc and Frank observe, both Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca were surprised by their discovery of rhetoric (131n18), and they explain the central importance of epideictic rhetoric (often marginalized at the expense of the deliberative and judicial types) in a way not made clear in the Traité or any work prior to L’empire: “The battle that the epideictic orator wages is a battle against future objections; it is an effort to maintain the ranking of certain value judgments in the hierarchy or, potentially, to confer on them a superior status” (134). It is the association between the epideictic and value judgments that elevates epideictic in their eyes. As Perelman will later write, “In my view the epideictic genre is central to discourse because its role is to intensify adherence to values, adherence without which discourses that aim at proving action cannot find the lever to move or to inspire their listeners” (1982, 19).Further ideas, like the Universal Audience, are again rehearsed in “Logique et rhétorique.” But this is also a paper that best clarifies the distance between Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, and Aristotle, and this is something that deserves some discussion.One of the assumptions generally made about the NRP is that it is Aristotelian in nature and its authors neo-Aristotelians. There are, of course, grounds to support this assumption. Perelman himself speaks of the new rhetoric as a project that “amplifies as well as extends Aristotle’s work” (1982, 4). Michel Meyer, Perelman’s student, seems to confirm as much when he writes, “Perelman’s view of rhetoric has often been qualified as neo-Aristotelian because it is reasonable, if not rational, to provide arguments which are convincing due to the type of logos used” (2017, 54). And even one of the current authors in question has described Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s project as “their contemporary revision of Aristotelian rhetoric” (Frank 2023, 251). So, clearly, there are careful distinctions to be made here.Throughout the papers, the debt to Aristotle is evident and frequently acknowledged. The Aristotelian syllogism plays an important role in several discussions, and the young Perelman saw value in Aristotle’s tandem of potentiality and actuality, terms that play an important role in the Metaphysics (and, one might suggest, in the Rhetoric).2 And as we have seen, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca acknowledge Aristotle as paving the way to seeing a model of nonformal reasoning and a viable conception of rhetoric.At the same time, the logic of Aristotle’s rhetoric is not one that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca endorse. It fits smoothly into the tradition of first philosophies that the whole NRP opposes. And the vision of reason is ultimately very different, as Perelman insisted in a response to Stanley Rosen (Perelman 1959). This is made clear in “Logique et rhétorique.” Aristotle’s relevant logic, the one developed in his Rhetoric, is a logic of the plausible. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s logic, as dictated by their conception of rhetoric with its emphasis on values, is a logic of the preferable (137). Nothing could set the two systems more firmly apart. And on this distinction, if for no other, we can see why ultimately Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca would not consider themselves neo-Aristotelians.Michelle Bolduc and David Frank have provided an enormous service to present and future readers of The New Rhetoric. Elsewhere, Bolduc (2020, 288) warns against limiting the corpus of the NRP to the Traité of 1958. This volume supports that warning, bringing to light a sampling of what might be missed by such a restrictive vision. The authors have also done readers throughout the world an immeasurable service in negotiating an open-access contract with Brill. This removes all financial impediments to studying an important set of essays, and I suspect it reflects Bolduc and Frank’s belief in the value of the ideas they are presenting here, and which in further volumes they will continue to present. These are two collaborators who have thought seriously about the nature of scholarly collaboration (Frank and Bolduc 2010), deriving insights that inform their approach to their subjects here. One suspects it is a collaboration as rewarding for those involved as it is for those who benefit from its results.

Indian technology start-ups have flourished in the past decade in sectors such as ride-hailing, hotel-booking, and at-home personal services, which have been supported by national programs and Silicon Valley ideas of market disruption. Drawing on Miller’s foundational work on “technological consciousness,” this article demonstrates how start-up origin stories construct an ethos that is aligned with nationalist and casteist privilege, which are the closed system's principal values. Expanding northern hemispheric exclusionism, the article contributes to the interdisciplinary study of entrepreneurial, professional, and technical communication with a critical view of how globalized discourses legitimize individual entrepreneurship by strengthening and obscuring the ideological tension between casteism and meritocracy.

Abstract Metaphors abound in scientific discourse. Well-known examples include ‘the brain as a computer’ and ‘the organism as a machine’. Such metaphors, we argue, have both a theoretical and a practical aspect: they may serve as explanatory models, but also guide technological development, influence policy, reflect ideological assumptions, and reshape how we understand ourselves. These practical dimensions have prompted growing concern about the risks associated with metaphor use in science. While this concern has been widely noted, less attention has been paid to the argumentative forms such criticism may take. This article addresses that gap by reconstructing resistance to scientific metaphors—specifically computer and machine metaphors—as a form of pragmatic argumentation, in which metaphor use is challenged on the basis of its practical consequences. It further shows how such argumentation may be supported by subordinate causal arguments that appeal to the metaphor’s highlighting/hiding structure. Drawing on the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, and analyzing examples from cognitive science, philosophy, and bioethics, the article demonstrates how metaphor resistance can be understood as a reconstructable form of argumentative critique—one in which metaphors become sites of normative contestation.

Abstract This study aims to analyze the perceptions of Spanish secondary school teachers in the fields of social and experimental sciences (n = 215) regarding the formative relevance of argumentative competence in the context of citizenship education. It also seeks to provide a psychometric instrument supported by robust empirical evidence of reliability and validity to achieve this goal. Based on a non-experimental, cross-sectional design, the AASES (Assessment of Argumentation in Social and Experimental Sciences) instrument,—developed ad hoc,—is administered to identify the potential relationship of sociodemographic factors with the theoretical subconstructs it comprises, the statistical association between age, origin, and gender, and the mediating role of gender in the relationship between age/place of origin and the defined latent factors, and the existence of significant differences among sociodemographic groups. The results indicate that, although a statistical association between age and gender was observed, the mediating role of gender in the relationship between age, origin, and the latent factors cannot be confirmed. SEM analyses showed that none of the sociodemographic predictors (age, origin, and gender) exert statistically significant direct or mediating effects on the latent factors. Furthermore, the comparative analyses complement the model by indicating that perceptions vary moderately by gender and age, even though these variables do not explain the latent factors in the SEM. Indeed, the analysis of variance revealed significant differences in the Critical and Ethical Skills dimension based on these two factors, with higher scores among male teachers and in the oldest age group, as well as increasing trends, with age, in the perceived importance of argumentation for the development and acquisition of critical thinking skills, informed decision-making, and ethical discussion. The findings highlight the need to incorporate specific spaces within the curriculum and teacher education programs to foster argumentative competencies and informed engagement with controversial socio-scientific issues, taking into account sociodemographic variables as influential factors in the educational process.

Abstract This work advocates for an alternative to the principle of charity when teaching critical thinking or informal logic. It provides a brief reconstruction of the principle in the context of argumentation before moving to demonstrate some of the shortcomings associated with different approaches to it in the literature. It argues for placing emphasis not on charity but on the interpretative competence that underlies charity. Doing so avoids the difficulties associated with the principle as such while still fostering the conditions for exploring the kinds of advanced interpretations the pursuit of charity typically yields.

Abstract In contemporary literature on argumentation, it is well-established that various genres of fiction can be used to present argumentation. For instance, in political satires, authors argue why a certain political situation is undesirable. Similarly, authors of fables argue—by means of animals as characters—that certain behaviour is desirable or unacceptable. Characteristically, authors of fiction create a fictional world in which their narratives take place. This collides with the sincerity conditions of the speech act complex of argumentation: preliminary conditions that should be satisfied for argumentation to be performed correctly. Firstly, these sincerity conditions require the arguer to believe that their standpoint is acceptable. Second, the arguer should believe that the statements they make to justify their standpoint are acceptable and third, the arguer should believe that these statements constitute an acceptable justification of their standpoint. As such, when argumentation meets fiction, the sincerity conditions do not align: how can authors—as arguers—actually believe that their uttered statements are acceptable, if these statements are oftentimes not true? The aim of this paper is to show both how proponents can accept propositions in fiction while still following argumentation’s sincerity conditions.

Abstract Part of the business of argumentation theory involves resolving a conceptual dispute over what argumentation and argument are in the first place. This dispute has produced various “concepts of argument.” The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to develop a complete ontology of argumentative phenomena, capable of accounting for various conceptions of argument—something, as I argue, that is badly wanting in argumentation theory; and, within this ontology, (2) to defend a position that there is but one concept of argument needed to grasp these diverse phenomena and conceptions of argument and argumentation. I move in four steps. First, I briefly sketch the discussion over arguments-as-activities and arguments-as-products. Second, I go back to the classic work of Twardowski on actions and products and adapt it for argumentation theory, producing a complex yet systematically organized conceptual ontology of argument and argumentation. This conceptual housekeeping allows me, third, to critically engage some of the recent, Frege-inspired philosophical literature on the concept of argument, while defending act-based approaches to argument(ation). Fourth, I present a positive proposal of a minimal, contrastivist concept of argument as a set of reasons advanced to support a conclusion C 1 rather than another conclusion C n .

Social media backlashes have emerged as important phenomena complicating how businesses communicate online and representing significant brand risk. This article demonstrates the value of content analysis and argumentation theory for understanding and responding to social media backlash events, using two examples from the UK fashion industry (hashtags #ThanksItsASOS and #boycottboohoo). The results provide lessons about the way backlashes operate in practice, how to analyze these effectively, and have implications for business approaches to communicating about Corporate Social Responsibility and managing social media. The authors conclude with suggestions for training on social media and CSR for businesses.

Alongside the self-help industry, self-assessment in higher education and organizational training has blossomed, especially as digital tools have made it possible to provide immediate feedback. Both contexts lack validated tools for accomplishing their goals. This study created and validated a series of self-assessments for classroom and training use. Drawing on student self-report data, self-assessment items were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis to assess construct validity and correlational analysis with existing research instruments to assess convergent validity. A set of 19 self-assessments with their accompanying validity and reliability evidence correspond to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) career-readiness (2021) skills, including communication, leadership, teamwork, technology, inclusiveness, and critical thinking.

Kristin Pickering presents a valuable case study that focuses on how professional communicators and researchers make sense of the narratives and values between stakeholders who may be at odds with each other. This is especially important in land usage and environmental protection cases like the Grey Cliffs, where the practices of private citizens and government regulated organizations conflict. Through Pickering's well-structured case study, she shares a fascinating web of documentation practices, discourse expectations, and community narratives and how they affect the communication practices between organizations and communities.

This summer my professional life was marked by a number of exciting changes. In addition to assuming the role of editor in chief of CDQ and producing my first issue, I stepped down from a longterm role with the editorial team at Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. In a bittersweet note, I received (and gave) a multitude of well wishes to the amazing colleagues and collaborators I had at Colorado State University, including Sue Doe, Lisa Langstraat, Tobi Jacobi, Todd Ruecker, Sarah Cooper, Chad Hoffman, Tiffany Lipsey, Dinaida Egan, and Meg Suter, while I started a new role as Chair of the Department of Professional and Public Writing at the University of Rhode Island. It was a summer full of packing, unpacking, painting—and new processes, policies, and people. Throughout this moment, I spent a great deal of time reflecting on this change. For instance, I reflected on what CDQ means to the fields of communication and user experience design (CD/UX), technical and professional communication (TPC), and writing and rhetoric studies (WRS). Similarly, I reflected on my editorial philosophy and how I will shape and alter it now that I've been entrusted with serving as steward of CDQ. In this opening editorial, I remark on three themes that emerged while contemplating these changes: gratitude, care, and resilience.

From an unsettled, ambivalent middle between discourses of generative AI integration and refusal, we offer a critical-ethical stance for AI-engaged writing assignments. We apply a critical thinking framework to these assignments, assert critical AI literacy as a kind of critical thinking, and discuss how critical thinking and critical AI literacy can facilitate ethical discernment about generative AI use. This unsettled, critical-ethical stance positions scholars in our field to support context-sensitive pedagogical responses to generative AI across first-year writing, Writing Across the Curriculum, writing centers, and beyond.

In gaming, cheat codes change how players engage a system by inviting exploration and reducing the fear of failure. Drawing on writing center pedagogy, this article proposes a similar framework for navigating generative AI in writing instruction and positions play as a method for developing critical AI literacy. Writing centers have long served as spaces where students engage collaboratively with new technologies and construct meaning through dialogue. This article extends that tradition by positioning writing center pedagogy as a framework for helping students examine AI’s ethical implications through treating it as a rhetorical situation to be unpacked, which demands principled, human-centered engagement rooted in values such as collaborative exploration. By weaving together writing center praxis and game-informed pedagogy, this article contributes to ongoing conversations in writing studies about how to integrate AI in ways that support critical thinking and ethical reflection. It demonstrates how playful, classroom-tested activities can animate discussions of bias and representation while helping students build rhetorical discernment through experience. Ultimately, the article argues that ethical literacy must be practiced through relational, iterative work. As writing classrooms become one of the few remaining spaces where students encounter generative AI with support and critical context, writing instructors have a vital opportunity to help students learn to write with, against, and around powerful technologies.

Writing centers in Brazil emerge from an internationalization initiative that combines tutoring students on academic assignments and translating Portuguese articles written by faculty and graduate students into English. Thus, they arise from local needs and contexts. Three articles about writing centers in Brazil have been published, and only one mentioned student tutors’ views. This research aims to understand their views on being part of a Brazilian writing center while pursuing their majors and graduate courses. Through narratives, four participants have voiced challenges regarding dealing with texts from a diversity of fields, handling technical terms, and expressed varying degrees of self-confidence when working with a text written by an individual in a scholarly higher position. Regarding growth opportunities, the student tutors mentioned the development of soft skills and teamwork, improvement in performing reading and writing tasks in their undergraduate programs, and opportunities to increase their knowledge in other fields. The discussions presented in this paper contribute to tutors’ training and to other research on student tutors, as well as to the landscape of what writing centers do in the domain of international publishing. In the U.S., writing centers emerged from labs and clinics (Carino, 1995) and were a resource for college writing assistance for undergraduate students from the 1970s on. However, this is not a common scenario in Brazilian high schools or higher education institutions. Universities in Brazil originated in the 1900s, meaning that higher education is a relatively recent phenomenon. The Brazilian educational system was established based on a “banking model of education” (Freire, 1970/2007), a metaphor used to describe students as containers into which educators must deposit knowledge, reinforcing that knowledge came from outside. Students were not encouraged as creators of new ideas and little was done to develop students’ critical thinking and writing skills, bearing resemblance to the observations made by Mora (2022) on her Mexican context. In this regard, writing centers are not a national reality and are not found in high schools or universities, as most of the writing practice is devoted to the essay students need to write to be accepted in the university entrance exam (Cons & Rezende, 2024; Martinez, 2023). Brazilian undergraduate and graduate students struggle to meet the demands of higher education, accomplishing academic tasks such as an undergraduate thesis and writing for publication without the help or the culture of pursuing the assistance of a writing center. Additionally, the pressure to publish internationally is an obstacle that faculty and graduate students must face, especially since high-impact journals publish in English and the Brazilian population is not bilingual. English language schools are profitable businesses in Brazil as compulsory education does not provide proper conditions for learning foreign languages. Thus, to cope with this demand, most graduate departments are applying part of their budgets to pay for translation and editing services (Martinez & Graf, 2016). Prof. Ron Martinez observed this scenario at the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR) and proposed the creation of the first Brazilian writing center – CAPA – Centro de Assessoria de Publicação Acadêmica (Academic Publishing Advisory Center) in 2016 to offer both translation and tutoring services (Martinez, 2023). Through this action, he aimed to apply resources inside the institution and provide academic and professional development to the students and faculty. Following the creation of CAPA, seven other writing centers were established in the state universities of Paraná, Brazil in the second semester of 2021. The writing center at our university is one of them. Since its creation, our center has offered tutoring and translation services, with its staff comprised of a university lecturer as a coordinator and graduate and undergraduate students as tutors and translators. These student tutors use English as a second language and are majoring mainly in English Language and Literature; however, students from other areas are welcome and have been part of the center. The increasing popularity of paid editorial services (Hartwood, 2019; Martinez, 2023) underscores the importance of writing centers offering sophisticated machine learning (ML) editing assistance, ensuring that all individuals may benefit from these services irrespective of financial circumstances. These two realities demonstrate that globalization and internationalization initiatives have influenced the tasks performed by some writing centers. In Brazil, student tutors are mainly involved in translation services from Portuguese to English, editing manuscripts in Portuguese and English, and tutoring undergraduate students in their academic tasks in Portuguese or in English. Performing these responsibilities involves challenges, and as a result, we want to explore the challenges and benefits of working as a tutor. Though inspired by aspects of American models, writing centers in Brazil arise from local needs and contexts that display their distinct histories (Martinez, 2023). They emerge from an internationalization initiative that combines tutoring students on academic assignments and translating Portuguese articles written by faculty and graduate students into English (Cons & Rezende, 2024). There are only three international publications about Brazilian writing centers: Martinez (2023), Cons and Rezende (2024), and Cons et al. (2025). Martinez (2023) explores the emergence and development of writing centers in Brazil, using the author’s experience as the founder of the Academic Publishing Advisory Center (CAPA) at the Federal University of Paraná. Cons and Rezende (2024) conducted their research at CAPA and focused on one particular consultation as a case study. Cons et al. (2025) discuss preliminary tutor impressions about Generative AI and evaluate how formal training on the use of Generative AI has impacted the translation and tutoring practices at CAPA. Even though these three articles present the Brazilian reality, none of them look at student tutors’ perspectives on working at a writing center in Brazil. International publications that focus on tutors (Thompson et al., 2009; Thonus, 2001, for example) have centered their research on the North American context. The current research presents the tutors’ voices on being part of a Brazilian writing center and advances the discussion about how writing centers in Brazil create situated practices with transnational applications (Mora, 2022). To contribute to the landscape of what writing centers do (Jackson & McKinney, 2012), this article addresses the following questions: What are the challenges faced by these student tutors? To what extent do student tutors at one Brazilian writing center perceive their work at the center as beneficial for their individual growth?

This piece explores a recent change in pedagogy for a professional communication program at a U.S. university. The Covid-19 pandemic prompted a reevaluation of the program’s service-learning curricula. Students’ pre-pandemic challenges are described and compared to their exacerbated struggles post-Covid, especially the impact of misinformation and artificial intelligence upon critical thinking skills. Service- learning clients’ struggles too are analyzed. Intersecting service-learning pedagogy with thought from public pedagogy scholarship can address these challenges by enhancing reciprocity in service-learning relationships. A nuanced understanding of reciprocity in service-learning roles can address power dynamics and break free from restrictive academic conventions, fostering a more equitable learning environment. The piece includes an example of how a revised service-learning curriculum in grant writing affected students’ critical thinking skills and enabled client partners to advocate for their organizations’ constituents.

Simulations have proven effective in creating an authentic and experiential learning environment for practicing communication skills. However, more simulations based on real-life events can be conceptualized to engage and immerse students in business and social scenarios. This article presents a simulation based on the Olympics, where teams take on the roles of various stakeholders such as citizen groups, environmentalists, government representatives, sponsors, and others, negotiating the feasibility and environmental impact of organizing such large-scale events. The students learned and honed their strategic persuasion and negotiation skills during the simulation. Limitations and areas for improvement of the simulation are also discussed.

In this study, we identify the pedagogical practices the science teachers use for successfully conducting their argumentation-based science lessons and examine the process of managing informal formative assessments. For this qualitative study, we collected data via video and audio devices from classroom implementations after conducting two professional development courses on assessment practices in inquiry settings and argumentation in science classrooms. We analysed the data from the conversation analysis (CA) perspective to conduct a data-driven study. Our results show that there are multiple pedagogical practices that teachers use to achieve lesson purposes and shape lessons. These are primarily the revealing of different claims and warrants or counterarguments about the same phenomenon or situation, prompting the class to discuss different arguments, including more than one student in interaction. Regarding the nature of answers produced by students, the teachers also make implicit or explicit positive and negative assessments, avoid explicit assessments, and give content feedback as pedagogical practices and use them for managing the informal formative assessment process. The results show that the teachers perform some pedagogical practices via the information gained by the informal formative assessment process. These pedagogical practices provide them with new road maps to achieve the lesson goal by increasing classroom interactions.

Abstract In numerous communicative practices, particularly in social media communication, it has become common to encounter messages pursuing a multiplicity of possible functions. They provide information, but sharing it is not their only or most important purpose. They appear to advocate for a particular viewpoint, yet no specific conclusion is stated, no argumentative or persuasive context surrounds them, and no dialectical exchanges follow or precede them. From a practical perspective, such messages, designated as “info-arguments,” are powerful strategies for advancing reasons, enabling the speaker to avoid the corresponding burden of proof. From a theoretical perspective, they challenge the pragmatic theories of meaning underlying argument reconstruction. Absent a specific context and considering the composite nature of an audience characterized by diverse backgrounds, how can we establish and justify that an info-argument conveys an argument? This paper proposes an analytical framework based on a dynamic and dialectical approach to meaning. In this view, the meaning of an info-argument is not represented as a pre-existing speaker’s intention manifested in a clear communication setting. Instead, it is regarded as a set of distinct, least defeasible interpretations characterizing various possible scenarios defined by several factors (or presumptions) that vary depending on the interlocutors’ backgrounds and values.

This article examines the subject of persuasion in technical and professional communications (TPC) with a specific focus on proposals in U.S. Government contracting. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between the intent of proposals, which is to persuade, and the rhetorical traditions and professional boundaries of technical writers. The analysis draws on the existing rhetorical- and genre-based TPC literature and borrows from theory in other disciplines—management, organizational theory, sociology, and psychology among others. To advance the scholarship on proposals, this analysis is framed within the overall context of a structural analogy to U.S. military Information Operations (IO). Through use of analogy, it is suggested that the IO community's approach to the concepts of “influence,” “narrative,” “target audience,” and “unity of effort” may offer useful insight for State and Federal contractors to consider in their efforts to write persuasive proposals. This analysis is then used to develop a research agenda for the study of proposals. Areas for future research include the science of persuasion and the use of narrative as it relates to proposals, improved rigor in the use of target audience research, and organizational constructs to improve collaborative writing in proposals.

This study examines how metadiscourse resources are used to achieve persuasiveness in Apple's earnings conference calls from 2013 through 2022. Adopting a corpus-assisted discourse study approach, the study reveals that self-mentions, transitions, and boosters are the three most frequently used metadiscourse resources by Apple executives. The authors detail how different types of metadiscourse contribute to the construction of three interactive roles that enhance persuasiveness. The study contributes to current studies of persuasion as a form of strategic communication. Business practitioners may benefit from learning the language practices of leading companies in order to optimize their own corporate communication strategies.

ChatGPT has created considerable anxiety among teachers concerned that students might turn to large language models (LLMs) to write their assignments. Many of these models are able to create grammatically accurate and coherent texts, thus potentially enabling cheating and undermining literacy and critical thinking skills. This study seeks to explore the extent LLMs can mimic human-produced texts by comparing essays by ChatGPT and student writers. By analyzing 145 essays from each group, we focus on the way writers relate to their readers with respect to the positions they advance in their texts by examining the frequency and types of engagement markers. The findings reveal that student essays are significantly richer in the quantity and variety of engagement features, producing a more interactive and persuasive discourse. The ChatGPT-generated essays exhibited fewer engagement markers, particularly questions and personal asides, indicating its limitations in building interactional arguments. We attribute the patterns in ChatGPT’s output to the language data used to train the model and its underlying statistical algorithms. The study suggests a number of pedagogical implications for incorporating ChatGPT in writing instruction.

This design-based study occurred within a writing methods course in an urban teacher education program. We designed an intervention to develop student teachers’ meta-composing strategies, critical thinking, and justice-oriented reflexivity by revising a teacher-as-writer course assignment to achieve two pedagogical goals: (1) synthesizing antiracist and pedagogical content from curated source texts, and (2) explicating racial literacy as future writing teachers of K-6 students. Using discourse synthesis as both an instructional and research method, we analyzed the synthesis outputs of student teachers during a writing assignment designed to communicate their learnings to an intended audience. Outputs included graphic organizers, planning documents, and a range of final products. We employed discourse synthesis to analyze source and synthesis texts through propositionalization, template formation, and thematic categorization, identifying idea unit origins, progression, or omission. Additionally, content and thematic analyses evaluated instructional strategies and materials to assess whether pedagogical objectives were met. Results indicated discourse synthesis instruction facilitated student engagement with antiracism content, such as historical events, systemic trends, and awareness of racist practices in schools. Findings also highlighted areas for improvement, including modifying source texts, revising the teacher-as-writer assignment, and reevaluating assessment practices in antiracist writing pedagogy.

This article reports on an analysis of salient argumentative schemes, rhetorical devices and linguistic choices that are characteristic of, but also problematic for, the public deliberation in Poland on the acceptable degrees and forms of assistance provided to Ukraine and Ukrainians. By identifying the historical origins of anti-Ukrainian sentiment and the current media stereotypes used as premises in deliberation on the Ukraine war, the study traces how arguments are enhanced, sometimes through topoi and fallacies, by communicators that are against supporting Ukraine. The study draws on a multimodal dataset of textual and audio-video materials from 2022-2024. The larger aim is to enhance critical rhetorical literacy through an overview of the rhetorical strategies that render even unsound arguments acceptable and appealing.

While disinformation is often equated with fabricated content, its impact extends beyond falsified information to the way narratives are linguistically constructed. This article explores the role of argumentative structures in disinformation strategies, focusing on how linguistic devices shape the reader’s interpretation of events. By analyzing argumentative operators and connectives in articles published on the Spanish-language pro-Kremlin news portal Sputnik Mundo, the study demonstrates that manipulation is not only a matter of content but also of discourse structure. The research is based on Anscombre and Ducrot’s theory of argumentation within language (1994) and framed within an interdisciplinary perspective, combining linguistic analysis with insights from disinformation studies and military theory, particularly the notion of disinformation as a weapon in hybrid conflict. Through an examination of selected articles covering NATO’s Steadfast Defender exercises in Europe, the study reveals how argumentative mechanisms are used to challenge official Western narratives, delegitimize NATO’s actions, and promote a Kremlin-aligned interpretation of geopolitical events.

Executive functions are attributed a central role in maintaining fluency during L2 text composition, allowing writers to orchestrate the various linguistic and cognitive processes and resources involved in writing. The study examined (1) whether language proficiency moderates the relationship between executive functions and writing fluency in L2 writing and (2) whether the effects indirectly affect text quality. Sixty university students composed two texts in English as their L2, an argumentation and a description, three executive function tasks assessing inhibition, shifting, and updating skills, a language proficiency test, and a copy task. Keystroke logging protocols were recorded with Inputlog and analyzed for writing fluency. Text quality was assessed with a holistic benchmark procedure and comparative judgments. The results revealed language-dependent and genre-specific effects of updating and shifting but not inhibition skills on writing fluency. Path models indicated that the interactions between executive functions and language proficiency indirectly affect text quality through process-related writing measures. The findings suggest a complex relation between executive functions and writing performance that depends on language proficiency and varies with task demands.

Background: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) reports are essential for companies to persuade stakeholders of their commitment to social, economic, and environmental responsibilities. This persuasion is to a large degree determined by how companies construct their stance in discourse. Literature review: Among efforts in academic discourse, stance analysis of shipping industry CSR reporting remains unexplored. Research questions: 1. How are stance resources distributed in COSCO Shipping and Maersk's CSR discourse? 2. How do similarities and differences between institutional speakers instantiate their stakeholder-oriented communication strategies? 3. Which stance markers show significant changes over time, and what factors drive these changes? Methodology: This study employed corpus linguistics and discourse analysis of CSR reports (2016-2022) of COSCO Shipping and of Maersk. Python and WordSmith 8.0 were used for stance feature retrieval and frequency analysis, and hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted on hedges and boosters. Chi-square tests evaluated differences in stance marker distribution, while diachronic analysis examined changes over time. Results and conclusion: Maersk employs more stance markers of hedges, attitude markers, and general self-mentions, reflecting a more personal communication style, while COSCO Shipping favors boosters and formal self-references, indicating an authoritative approach. We argue that these features are informed by the contrast between European rationalism and Eastern empiricism in corporate communication. Our novel four-category classification of self-mentions (general, specific reference, group, and affiliated) addresses the complexities of shipping corporate discourse. Diachronic analysis shows stance marker usage fluctuations, particularly during global events like the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings develop a stance framework, offering insights in terms of stance construction for effective cross-cultural CSR communication to foster global cooperation on shared social responsibilities.

About the case: We suggest using Aristotle's rhetorical triangle, a tool for analyzing communication in terms of logos (logic), pathos (values), and ethos (identity), in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) undergraduate classes. We investigate how the triangle can enhance students’ communication skills by developing awareness of pathos and ethos, and shed light on values, considerations, and professional identity at different stages of their studies. Situating the case: Developing communication skills among STEM students is imperative even in the age of AI-based tools. Although many books and platforms exist to help facilitate communication in general, STEM students require practical tools to foster the rhetorical skills needed for effective and persuasive communication. Methods: The rhetorical triangle intervention was implemented in two undergraduate courses to help students develop the other necessary elements of effective communication beyond logos: i.e., pathos and ethos. Results: Our results show that the intervention enhanced students’ ability to express shared values (pathos) with their audience and fostered the development of professional identity (ethos). Our findings also revealed notable differences in professional identity expression when comparing two different samples of future scientists and engineers in their freshmen and senior years. Conclusion: We suggest that incorporating the elements of the rhetorical triangle into STEM education can enhance students’ communication skills, particularly in expressing the value of their work and developing a strong professional identity. We recommend integrating these elements throughout various stages of the curriculum to deepen students’ understanding of effective communication and persuasion.

Abstract: It is the role of scholars to shine the light of tradition on problems of today so the value of the rhetorical tradition is clear to a larger audience of students, citizens, and non-experts, even as these same scholars undertake the difficult, demanding work of unearthing, reinterpreting, and understanding anew the buried wisdom of that tradition. This is a rallying cry to reclaim the history of rhetoric as a theory of persuasion about contingency: to comprehend anew how the essential unpredictability of human judgment and action are guided by the power of words.

In this article, we replicate important findings about workplace persuasion (e.g., a preference for face-to-face rather than computer-mediated messages). We extend those findings by including videoconferencing among the available channels and determining that practitioners regard video as less effective than face-to-face and more effective than email. Furthermore, we find that business practitioners prefer multichannel strategies for upwardly directed persuasion, and that some—more women than men in our sample—call on a person to serve as one of the channels. These findings provide insights that teachers can apply in the classroom; they also suggest questions for future research.

The language movement in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was a social movement that seeded Bangladeshi consciousness and is often considered as prefiguring Bangladeshi independence in 1972. It underscored the centrality of linguistic identity in modern nationalism. Developments in the language movement also provide a generative example of how development and modernity can frame discussions around language reform and literacy in contexts characterized by a multilingual norm and postcoloniality. This article examines the rhetorics of language reform in the movement through a reading of a set of recommendations for developing a simplified register of Bangla, called Shahaj-Bangla, within a sense of the overall language movement and its discourse. I argue that the new register simultaneously presents a scientific and cultural view of language to suit the needs of the region. This study contributes to current scholarship in the field by showing how an example of language reform assumes a fluid nature of language while also arguing for a form of standardization aligned with modern nationalism. It also adds to our developing conversations around language and literacy transnationally through its focus on a language debate about a non-European language set in a non-Western context.

This article presents “The Cure for Talking,” a pioneering conceptual framework that blends Transactional Analysis (TA) with Artificial Intelligence (AI), to produce a TA-AI Bot designed to optimize executive communication. Here, the medium of interest is written emails. The TA-AI Bot aims to change behavior through the reinforcement mechanism of repetition. The feedback system of the TA-AI Bot is designed to enhance users’ self-awareness and communication quality, that is, identification and shifting of ego states to approximate better communication; and recognition of rhetorical appeals that typify their exchanges with others. Validation of “The Cure for Talking” will require iterative research.

In the crowded social media platforms, brands need diverse strategies to engage users with their branding content. The research uses a communicative persuasive matrix in an experimental design to understand the multilayered social media persuasion with factors like message sources (celebrity vs. social media influencer), message strategy and message receivers’ attributes. The impact of these variables is tested on the intent to like and share the branding message in the case of a health and fitness product. The results indicated that different users prefer to like and share branding messages with different message sources and message strategies.

Argumentation, one of the foundational pillars of writing instruction in K–12 schools, is consistently framed in literacy policy, curriculum, and assessment as a crucial skill youth need to participate in democratic deliberation. Yet the normative emphases in argument discourse on individual subjectivity, binary analysis, and competitive social scarcity stifle the development of the solidarity and relationality needed to counter rancorous political discord and to build equitable civic futures. In this conceptual essay, the authors offer a reimagined paradigm and practice of argument that fosters empathetic thinking and mutuality, moving away from the conceptualization of argument as solitary edifice and toward a vision of argument as collective architecture. Drawing upon lessons from global communicative traditions and recent turns in literacy scholarship toward participatory design, multimodality, and critical speculation, the authors provide five guiding principles for the Argument Writing as Architecture (AWA) framework, share vignettes from classroom and community learning spaces to illustrate its utility, and propose strategies for its implementation in K–12 classrooms.

This study examines the use of persuasive language by male and female entrepreneurs in high-stakes negotiation settings, focusing on gendered communication strategies. With a particular emphasis on Aristotle’s modes of persuasion (Ethos, Pathos, and Logos), the research analyzes 44 negotiation conversations from Shark Tank US , Season 11, using a quantitative approach. Data were processed with SPSS to assess gender differences in persuasive strategies. The findings reveal significant gendered patterns: male entrepreneurs predominantly used Logos as a way to emphasize on logical reasoning and evidence to persuade investors, while female entrepreneurs more often employed Pathos, sparking emotional appeals to build empathy and engagement. These differences are discussed in light of social constructivist theories of language, which suggest that gendered communication reflects broader societal power dynamics. The study highlights the challenges women face in balancing authority with warmth in negotiations, a double bind identified in earlier research. This research contributes to our understanding of how gender influences persuasive strategies in entrepreneurial contexts and offers implications for promoting more equitable communication in business settings. It also suggests that future research should further explore how these findings can be applied to support female entrepreneurs in overcoming communication barriers and achieving greater success in negotiation and leadership roles.

GenAI has demonstrated functionality that seems, uncannily, to parallel reading and writing by identifying/reformulating information from source texts and generating novel content and argumentation. These skills are essential yet challenging for many students tasked with producing literature reviews. This study takes the first steps to investigating the feasibility of a GenAI-facilitated literature review. This investigation starts from the ‘human-in-the-loop’ position that complex processes can be deconstructed and compartmentalized, and that component functions needed for these processes can be delegated to machines while humans contribute to, or control, the overall process. We explore the hypothesis that certain functions of the literature review process, such as information extraction and content classification, might be able to be automated. Prompts modeled on recommended practices for research synthesis were designed to identify and classify particular types of content in research articles. Outputs produced by two GenAI models, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o, were assessed for reliability with a human coder. Overall, the results posit concerns about the models’ performance on this task, cautioning against direct uses of GenAI output as learning scaffolding for students developing literature review skills.