Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analysing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. They develop a method for the reconstruction of argumentative discourse that takes into account all aspects that are relevant to a critical assessment. They also propose a practical code of behaviour for discussants who want to resolve their differences in a reasonable way. This is a major contribution to the study of argumentation and will be of particular value to professionals and graduate students in speech communication, informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, linguistics, and philosophy.

Drawing on Hume's philosophical, historical, and popular writings,The Politics of Eloquencepresents an understanding of rhetoric that can be properly ascribed to this important thinker, an understanding hitherto overlooked in the scholarly literature.

This book seeks to bring the problem of difference into the ongoing discussions vis-a-vis democratic deliberations about advancing rhetorical theory through the trope of the other, alloiosis, defined as the figure of difference, exception, and radical otherness.

In this study, we explore the impact of Machiavellian rhetoric on fundraising within the increasingly important context of online crowdfunding. The “all-or-nothing” funding model used by the world’s largest crowdfunding platform, Kickstarter, may be an attractive context in which entrepreneurs can utilize Machiavellian rhetoric to reach their funding goal, lest they get no funding at all. This study uses data from 76,847 crowdfunding projects posted on kickstarter.com and develops a dictionary for computer-aided text analysis (CATA) of Machiavellian rhetoric to measure the relationship between the frequency of Machiavellian rhetoric use and crowdfunding performance, operationalized as either reaching a funding goal or the number of backers who funded the project. Machiavellian rhetoric is segregated into eight facets, which are categorized into hard and soft influence tactics. Hard tactics include revenge, intimidation, betrayal, and manipulation. Soft tactics include ingratiation, supplication, self-disclosure, and persuasion. Results reveal that signals of revenge, self-disclosure, and intimidation have negative effects, whereas signals of ingratiation and persuasion have mixed positive effects on crowdfunding performance. Ingratiation is found to increase the number of backers, but not funding success. Conversely, persuasion is found to increase funding success, but not the number of backers. Surprisingly, betrayal rhetoric is positively related to both measures of crowdfunding performance. Thus, this article complements the literature on backer decision-making, entrepreneurial methods, reward-based crowdfunding, and ethics in entrepreneurship by demonstrating how the displays of potentially negative phenomena, such as Machiavellianism, have complex consequences for entrepreneurial outcomes.

What are the implications of strategic manoeuvring for the activity of the simultaneous interpreter? This is the main question addressed in The Quest for Argumentative Equivalence. Based on the analysis of a multilingual comparable corpus named ARGO, the book investigates political argumentation with an eye to its reformulation by interpreters. After reporting and discussing a series of case studies illustrating interpreters' problems in the political context, the study reconstructs the prototypical argumentative patterns used by Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy and Hollande not only in a hermeneutical perspective, but also considering interpreters' need to reproduce them into a foreign language. Situated at the intersection of Argumentation Theory and Interpreting Studies, the book provides a contribution to the descriptive study of political argumentation, highlighting the presence of interpreters as a key contextual variable in political communication and deepening the study of the interlinguistic and translational implications of the act of arguing.

Lecture 9 tackles the notion of persuasion when using formal and informal arguments. Based on inductive reasoning, informal arguments aim to persuade listeners of their truth by the sheer weight of the reasons the presenter can mobilize. Unlike formal arguments, informal arguments are precisely the sorts of arguments that are wedded to the idea of truth. They are the kinds of arguments where rhetoric is most called for.  Le cours 9 traite de la notion de persuasion dans des circonstances où l’on a recours à des arguments formels et informels. Basés sur un raisonnement inductif, les arguments informels tentent de persuader l’auditeur de leur vérité par la simple force des raisons que le présentateur peut rassembler. Contrairement aux arguments formels, les arguments informels représentent précisément le type d’argument qui adhère à l’idée de vérité. Ils sont le type d’argument où la rhétorique peut être le plus utile.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of rhetoric and rhetorical strategies that are implicit in the standalone sustainability reporting of the top 24 companies of the Fortune 500 Global. We adopt Bormann's (Q J Speech 58(4):396-407, 1972) SCT framework to study the rhetorical situation and how corporate sustainability reporting (CSR) messages can be communicated to the audience (public). The SCT concepts in the sustainability reporting's communication are subject to different types of legitimacy strategies that are used by corporations as a validity and legitimacy claim in the reports. A content analysis has been conducted and structural coding schemes have been developed based on the literature. The schemes are applied to the SCT model which recognizes the symbolic convergent processes of fantasy among communicators in a Society. The study reveals that most of the sample companies communicate fantasy type and rhetorical vision in their corporate sustainability reporting. However, the disclosure or messages are different across locations and other taxonomies of the SCT framework. This study contributes to the current CSR literature about how symbolic or fantasy understandings can be interpreted by the users. It also discusses the persuasion styles that are adopted by the companies for communication purposes. This study is the theoretical extension of the SCT. Researchers may be interested in further investigating other online communication paths, such as human rights reports and director's reports.

Rhetoricians first saw “the digital” flickering on screens but now feel its effects transducing our most fundamental of social practices. This essay traces digital emergence on screens and through networks and further into everyday life through infrastructures and algorithms. We argue that while “the digital” may have once been but one more example of the available means of persuasion, “digital rhetoric” has become an ambient condition.

When people argue, they are vulnerable to unwanted and costly changes in their beliefs. This vulnerability motivates the position that belief involuntarism makes argument inherently adversarial (Casey, Informal Log 40:77–108, 2020), as well as the development of alternatives to adversarial argumentation such as “invitational rhetoric” (Foss and Griffin, Commun Monogr 62:2–18, 1995). The emphasis on involuntary belief change in such accounts, in our perspective, neglects three dimensions of arguing: the diversity of arguer intentions, audience agency, and the benefits of belief change. The complex impact of arguments on both audiences and arguers involves vulnerabilities related to various forces of argument, not just the intellectual force of premise-conclusion complexes. Shifting emphasis from adversariality to vulnerability, we propose a more holistic understanding of argument, in which vulnerability reveals various sources of strength and opportunity in addition to risk.

This article contributes to philosophical discussions on religious diversity by applying a Wittgensteinian lens, specifically drawing on insights from On Certainty. It examines interreligious disagreement as a form of “deep disagreement” and posits that Wittgenstein contends that argumentation has limitations in resolving such conflicts. Instead, the article suggests that persuasion—a distinct process of making differences visible—facilitates a gradual reassessment of one’s world-picture. A key contribution of Wittgenstein’s thought to discussions on religious diversity lies in his emphasis on recognizing differences and understanding their transformative impact on our world-pictures. The article begins by differentiating between various types of disagreement, proposing that On Certainty addresses conflicts between world-pictures which can be characterized as deep disagreements. It then delves into Wittgenstein’s insights into the functioning of world-pictures and the crucial importance of grasping their dynamics for a better understanding of such disagreements. Building on this foundation, this article argues that persuasion, as a non-argumentative mode of engagement, is uniquely positioned to effectively make these differences visible in cases of deep disagreement. Finally, this article demonstrates how these ideas can help to address and resolve key misunderstandings within the philosophy of religious diversity.