A Study Of English Argumentative Rhetoric

Informed by the same roots of classical rhetorical thoughts, and taking as their central task the reaction against logical empiricism and scientism as rhetoricians do, contemporary Western argumentation theorists have theoretical concerns and scholarly interests similar to those of Western rhetorical studies, and have yielded a bonanza of profound theoretical achievements. Argumentation and rhetoric are inevitably entwined since both endorse the probable and contingent opinion instead of absolute truth as the foundation and starting point of discursive production, and both emphasize the situational nature and discursive effects of any discursive practice. On the other hand, the unique theoretical bents of argumentation theories, particularly the systematic categorization and conceptualization of discursive techniques thus proffered, can contribute to a new understanding of rhetorical practice.However, due to various reasons, the argumentative resources which are part and parcel of rhetorical legacies have not yet been fully engaged, tapped, and assimilated by scholars working in the field of rhetorical criticism(RC) which as a qualitative study or itself a rhetorical practice is designed for the systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic actions, and serves to enact a communion of rhetorical theory and discursive practice and eventually, to enrich our understanding of both. Particularly, research about RC is still in its budding stage in China. And domestic Chinese scholars in the rhetorical tradition have paid only scant attention to the critical potentials of argumentation theories, leaving the possibility of intersection between argumentation and RC far from being explored. This lack of probe into the pertinence of argumentation and critical study more specifically manifests in that few studies if any about the interrelations of different argumentation theories, and of argumentation and rhetoric, are carried out, that more thorough exploration into the rich typology of argumentative techniques which will unveil the scope and depth of rhetorical invention remains to be done, that the constructive dialogue between argumentation theorists and rhetoricians such as Perelman and Burke is wanting, and that how argumentation insights may allow us to interpret and evaluate discursive practice remains untapped. These issues are essential in coping with the exigence of a fuller understanding of rhetoric, argumentation and their relations. And tackling them is imperative as gaining a richer experience of the discursive practice and symbolic power is an urgent and widely sanctioned academic enterprise. Moreover, our study will make a valuable contribution to confronting the tension which exists between the exigence of a"rhetorical turn"and lack of or unfamiliarity with necessary methods or toolkit to enact the turn in domestic rhetorical studies(or xiuci studies). Our accumulated efforts eventually reveal the essentially humane ethos embodied in rhetoric and argumentation.Our study starts with the intellectual climate of and the theoretical achievements made by the three perspectives of studies into argumentation. The shared intellectual interests and historical roots of argumentation studies and rhetorical studies are pinpointed. Then the definitions and correlations of the important concepts in the study are provided and the argumentativeness of meaning and value is explored, demonstrating further the feasibility and necessity of RC's assimilation of argumentation resources and the richness of the notion of argumentation, and rectifying the parochial or incorrect conceptualizations about it. Predicated on the conceptual framework, we then delve into the macro-level situational stratum and ontological premise of RC in an attempt to infuse argumentative insights with rhetorical (situation) theories for a RC friendly synthesis. A critical rereading of rhetorical situation theories reveals that argumentative insights particularly those about argumentative strategies can greatly refine the less developed inventional dimension of rhetorical situation. Inspired by the argumentation resources and rhetorical thoughts of Burke and other great thinkers, the neglected but important situational elements such as the rhetorical space, argumentative context, argumentative agent, argumentative audience and agency are elaborated. Through a juxtaposed reading of Foucault's discursive subject, Bourdieu's habitus agent and Habermas's communicative agent, we argue for the reasonableness of argumentative or rhetorical agent as an ontological rationalization for rhetorical invention and RC. A detailed discussion of argumentative audience is aimed to show the centrality of audience in the discursive invention on the one hand, and to serve as a platform for a reflection on different argumentation theories on the other. The commensurability of argumentation and rhetoric is concomitantly unveiled in the constructive dialogues between Perelman and Burke.As one of most unique resources contributed by argumentation theories, the system of argumentative techniques expressly demonstrates the possibilities and potentials the argumentation insights can have in rhetorical invention and RC. With the principle of inertia as the fundamental enabler of discourse strategy, we synthesize the argumentative insights offered by Perelman, PDA and Walton, and propose a typology of argumentative techniques which is divided into associative techniques, dissociative techniques and pathetic techniques. These sets of techniques constitute the most important instrumental avenue to conduct argumentative RC.While more and more scholars have come to realize that rhetoric claims a legitimate province over the non-verbal symbolic actions, theorizations and critiques about the visual rhetorics are still sporadic and unsystematic in the rhetorical studies. Many argumentation theorists also tend to delimit the areas of argumentation studies solely in verbal artifacts. Responding to this unfortunate inadequacy and armed additionally with the visual grammar developed by Kress&Leeuwen, we attempt to expand the scope of argumentation, rhetorical invention and RC by situating them in the emerging paradigm of visual rhetoric in a hope to reveal a new facet of the three. And it is also the continued endeavor to establish the relevance of argumentation to RC.As the last efforts of our study, we carry out some rhetorical anatomies of the actual discursive practices by mobilizing our argumentative concepts of rhetorical situation and the system of argumentative techniques. These case studies not only prove the pertinence of argumentation to RC and fruitfulness of its critical applications, but also show how argumentation finds its expression in some argumentatively atypical discursive engagements. More importantly, the critical analyses demonstrate how RC may contribute to the theoretical buildings of rhetoric and argumentation, and how it may allow us to gain deeper insight into such theoretical issues as the symbiosis of argumentation and institutional power, the argumentative dynamics of institutional ethos (re)building in crisis rhetoric, and the normative role played by the audience and its function in mediating burden of proof in scientific controversy, as well as the epideictic function of scientific controversy.The study, adopting a methodology of qualitative and interpretative analysis, attempts to explore the relevance of argumentation to RC so as to rectify the general neglect of argumentation insights within the discipline of rhetorical (criticism) studies. It also highlights the humane ethos embodied in argumentation and rhetoric which is always aimed at peaceful and critical alternatives, and as such, corrects certain rarefied conceptualizations about them and provides a fuller understanding of both.