|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
"Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face "describes the process
and products of face-to-face argument. Author Dale Hample presents
arguing as a type of interpersonal interaction, rather than as a
kind of text or a feature of a public speech. He focuses primarily
on argument production, and explores the rhetorical and
philosophical traditions of arguing, keeping as the volume's main
focus the integration of arguing into the literatures on message
production, conflict management, and interpersonal communication.
Distinctive in its approach, this volume offers:
*a synthesis of empirical research on situational and individual
differences in arguing;
*an exploration of argument frames--perceptions and expectations
about arguing;
*an examination of the conversational and rational natures of
argument products;
*a psychological description of inventional processes; and
*a full chapter on the emotional experience of arguing.
This unique work is appropriate for scholars and graduate students
in argumentation, discourse, persuasion, conflict management,
interpersonal communication, organizational communication, and
message production.
Argumentation is often understood as a coherent set of Western
theories, birthed in Athens and developing throughout the Roman
period, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment and Renaissance, and
into the present century. Ideas have been nuanced, developed, and
revised, but still the outline of argumentation theory has been
recognizable for centuries, or so it has seemed to Western
scholars. The 2019 Alta Conference on Argumentation (co-sponsored
by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic
Association) aimed to question the generality of these intellectual
traditions. This resulting collection of essays deals with the
possibility of having local theories of argument – local to a
particular time, a particular kind of issue, a particular place, or
a particular culture. Many of the papers argue for reconsidering
basic ideas about arguing to represent the uniqueness of some
moment or location of discourse. Other scholars are more
comfortable with the Western traditions, and find them congenial to
the analysis of arguments that originate in discernibly distinct
circumstances. The papers represent different methodologies, cover
the experiences of different nations at different times, examine
varying sorts of argumentative events (speeches, court decisions,
food choices, and sound), explore particular personal identities
and the issues highlighted by them, and have different overall
orientations to doing argumentation scholarship. Considered
together, the essays do not generate one simple conclusion, but
they stimulate reflection about the particularity or generality of
the experience of arguing, and therefore the scope of our theories.
Winner of the 2019 Gerald R. Miller Outstanding Book Award
presented by the Interpersonal Communication Division of the
National Communication Association (NCA). Interpersonal Arguing is
an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face
arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of reasons. Topics
include frames for understanding the nature of arguing, argument
situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and international
differences in how people understand interpersonal arguing. This is
a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in understanding
how people argue with one another.
Arguing: Exchanging Reasons Face to Face describes the process and
products of face-to-face argument. Author Dale Hample presents
arguing as a type of interpersonal interaction, rather than as a
kind of text or a feature of a public speech. He focuses primarily
on argument production, and explores the rhetorical and
philosophical traditions of arguing, keeping as the volume's main
focus the integration of arguing into the literatures on message
production, conflict management, and interpersonal communication.
Distinctive in its approach, this volume offers: *a synthesis of
empirical research on situational and individual differences in
arguing; *an exploration of argument frames--perceptions and
expectations about arguing; *an examination of the conversational
and rational natures of argument products; *a psychological
description of inventional processes; and *a full chapter on the
emotional experience of arguing. This unique work is appropriate
for scholars and graduate students in argumentation, discourse,
persuasion, conflict management, interpersonal communication,
organizational communication, and message production.
Argumentation is often understood as a coherent set of Western
theories, birthed in Athens and developing throughout the Roman
period, the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment and Renaissance, and
into the present century. Ideas have been nuanced, developed, and
revised, but still the outline of argumentation theory has been
recognizable for centuries, or so it has seemed to Western
scholars. The 2019 Alta Conference on Argumentation (co-sponsored
by the National Communication Association and the American Forensic
Association) aimed to question the generality of these intellectual
traditions. This resulting collection of essays deals with the
possibility of having local theories of argument - local to a
particular time, a particular kind of issue, a particular place, or
a particular culture. Many of the papers argue for reconsidering
basic ideas about arguing to represent the uniqueness of some
moment or location of discourse. Other scholars are more
comfortable with the Western traditions, and find them congenial to
the analysis of arguments that originate in discernibly distinct
circumstances. The papers represent different methodologies, cover
the experiences of different nations at different times, examine
varying sorts of argumentative events (speeches, court decisions,
food choices, and sound), explore particular personal identities
and the issues highlighted by them, and have different overall
orientations to doing argumentation scholarship. Considered
together, the essays do not generate one simple conclusion, but
they stimulate reflection about the particularity or generality of
the experience of arguing, and therefore the scope of our theories.
Winner of the 2019 Gerald R. Miller Outstanding Book Award
presented by the Interpersonal Communication Division of the
National Communication Association (NCA). Interpersonal Arguing is
an accessible review of scholarship on key elements of face-to-face
arguing, which is the interpersonal exchange of reasons. Topics
include frames for understanding the nature of arguing, argument
situations, serial arguments, argument dialogues, and international
differences in how people understand interpersonal arguing. This is
a thorough survey of the leading issues involved in understanding
how people argue with one another.
|
|