Abstract

ABSTRACT There is something importantly right about an audience-centered approach to argumentation, but it raises questions. For example, when it is said that the argumentation is a function of the audience addressed, what does “audience” mean here? Who constitutes this audience? More important, how does the arguer gain this knowledge of this audience? And is acceptance by the audience really the best way to view the goal of argumentation? This article broaches these questions, turning to discussions of audience by Chaïm Perelman, Christopher Tindale, and Trudy Govier to ask how one comes to know one's audience and whether acceptance by the audience is the goal of argumentation.

Journal
Philosophy & Rhetoric
Published
2013-11-01
DOI
10.5325/philrhet.46.4.0533
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Computers and Composition

References (10)

  1. Finochiarro, Maurice. 2003. “Dialectics, Evaluation, and Argument.”Informal Logic 23 (1): 19–51.
  2. Goodwin, Jean. 2002. “Designing Issues.” In Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analys…
  3. Govier, Trudy. 1999. The Philosophy of Argument. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
  4. Johnson, Ralph, H. 2000. Manifest Rationality.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  5. Johnson, Ralph H., and J. Anthony Blair. 2006. Logical Self-Defense.New York: IDEA Press.
Show all 10 →
  1. Nickerson, Raymond S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.”Review of …
  2. Perelman, Chaïm. 1982. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  3. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John…
  4. Porter, James. 1996. “Audience.” In Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition, ed. Theresa Enos, 42–49. New Yo…
  5. Tindale, Christopher. 1999. Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument. Albany: SUNY Press.