Dr. Katherine Heenan
English 472
Spring 2007
Herrick Notes
Herrick, James. A History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 3rd edition. New York: Allyn and
Bacon, 2005
Chapter Nine
Contemporary Rhetoric I:
Argument, Audience, and Science
Chaim Perelman
 1912 – 1985
 Belgian philosopher and legal theorist
 became interested in the question of how moral claims can be proven rational in a culture in
which there are few agreements about values
 He and Olbrechts-Tyteca set out to discover a nonscientific but also nontheistic foundation for
discourse involving values
 Their major work, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, 1969
 The New Rhetoric of Chaim Perelman
o Because Perelman looks to a juridical model of truth rather than a mathematical one, he
does not assume, as does Descartes, that only one side can be right in a dispute.
o Perhaps both are right, perhaps both views could be proven in the process of dialogue
and argumentation, and finally, as practical solutions.
Chaim Perelman´s New Rhetoric is based on three pillars;
1. Framework of argumentation ( the relationship to the audience that is to be influenced by the
argumentation)
2. The starting point of argumentation ( prior agreements)
3. Argumentative techniques ( associative and dissociative schemes- the dormant metaphor)
 In many ways the framework of argumentation is the most important factor,
o defining the relationship to the audience.
o have to adjust your argumentation in relation to an audience.
o The audience is always a key factor in all rhetoric.
o The starting point of argumentation is important in the way that it defines what the prior
agreements are supposed to be.
o There will always be such a relation between the speaker and the audience.
 The argumentative techniques of argumentation will vary from situation to situation
Audience
o the orator must pay attention to the audience, considering both the audience at hand and the
universal audience
o All audiences are partly or mostly incommensurate with the universal audience and with each
other.
o One should not assume a perfectly rational audience.
o Nevertheless one should assume some commonality of values and adherence to common sense
among the audiences and with the orator.
o On the other hand, to promote a new value in certain contexts often is an abuse in which "an
educator turns propagandist" (53).
Herrick, Ch 9
o
o
o
2
Likewise, certain questions are beyond discussion, e.g. whether one should love one's parents,
or whether snow is white (following Aristotle, 56).
One may either persuade or convince a local audience, but to be valid for the universal audience
an argument must be convincing.
Negative argument shows the audience why it should have reacted in a certain way to the orator
(but did not); the orator shows how the audience has been working from its own incorrect
arguments or false motives (476).
 Perelman´s main distinction is between associative and dissociative schemes.
o Associative schemes are characterized by linking together separate phenomena, while
o dissociative schemes are characterized by separating originally interlocked concepts or
phenomena and in this way restructuring the conceptual field.
o Associative arguments based on analogy are very common, and the use of metaphors
in different ways is an important element in the argumentation.
o The metaphor is the prototype of abstract though, while the dormant metaphor is
important in Perelman´s theory of rhetoric.
o He refers to a metaphor as dormant when it is detached from its origin and it forms an
invisible fusion.
o The argumentative power of the dormant metaphor is often sufficient in itself, and there is
no more need for argumentation.
o Typical dormant metaphors in planning documents are increase in efficiency and
flexibility.. (Brown 1987)
 Rhetoric favors reasonable compromises that are instruments and generators of further evolution.
 The statement that facts do not speak for themselves has obvious ethical implications.
o Demonstration employs a formal language or imitates one.
o Argumentation uses and is expressly based on human language which is intrinsically
ambiguous.
o Demonstration is a way of forcing the right conclusion.
o Argumentation aims for adherence to a certain statement or belief through a rational and
reciprocal reasoning process.
 The New Rhetoric adds new vitality to traditional dialectics.
o One aim is to correct the danger of over- or underestimating empirical data.
o The New Rhetoric is an instrument which can be used to unveil the essence from
misleading forms.
o It is a way of overcoming the power of dogmas, myths and the "obvious truths" of
common sense.
 Perelman makes it clear that argumentation is not bargaining. From a rhetorical viewpoint one
should persist in improving the given compromise in the direction we seek.
centrality of audience—universal audience"
o Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca define the universal audience as "the whole of mankind, or at
least, of all normal, adult persons."
o The universal audience tests the reasonableness of arguments in a manner transcending local
and personal biases.
o The universal audience is important in the effort to fashion reasonable arguments for particular
audiences without bowing to local prejudices.
o Despite a local audience's response to an argument, writers and speakers must try also to
imagine how any normal, rational individual would respond to it.
o Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca seek in the universal audience an audience of reasonable people
available at all times to all rhetors, and not subject to the limitations and biases of any particular
audience.
Herrick, Ch 9
o
o
o
3
In the universal audience, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca reveal their conviction that a rational
and morally informed rhetor must possess a vision of the reasonable that transcends a particular
social group or geographical location.
The reasonable individual seeks a standard which transcends an audience made up of her
friends, or even of her opponents.
Argumentation which wins the assent of the universal audience must reach a very high standard
of rationality.
advantages of argumentation before a single listener
o In order to know that our arguments are ready for appeal to the universal audience, the careful
scrutiny that takes place when one person argues directly with another is helpful.
o Argumentation before a single hearer makes a special claim to reasonableness, and provides
another kind of test of arguments.
o The single hearer sometimes acts like an audience of one's opponents by advancing the counterarguments to one's own arguments.
o The single listener or reader carefully checks each step in the argumentation, raising objections
to it, asking for clarifications, providing arguments in response.
o The individual listener can in some cases fulfill this role so well that he or she represents the
universal audience.
o If our arguments succeed before an audience of a single, careful critic, they may be ready for the
test of the universal audience.
categories of the starting points of argumentation
o Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca divide the starting points of argumentation into the two
categories of “the real” and “the preferable.”
o Under the first heading they place well established facts, widely accepted truths, and
uncontested commitments called presumptions.
o Under the category of “the preferable” they place commonly held values, values arranged into
hierarchies, and lines of argument concerning the preferable.
Toulmin
constituent elements of an argument
o In The Uses of Argument, Stephen Toulmin suggested that arguments consist of various
identifiable parts.
o The Toulmin Model identifies the various elements in an argument, and arranges these elements
on a diagram.
o Briefly, Toulmin noted that arguments consist of a claim or conclusion, some data or evidence to
support the claim, and a warrant or generalization that tends to link data to claim.
o Toulmin also noted the presence of backing, or support for the warrant, rebuttals or potential
conditions on the acceptance of the claim, and modal qualifiers in his model.
field- dependent and field- invariant standards for assessing arguments
o Toulmin introduced the concept of argument fields into his discussion of arguments.
o Arguments are of the same field when the evidence and conclusions in each are of the same
logical type.
o Geometrical proofs, navigational calculations and arguments from statistical data belong to
different fields.
o Thus, some of the criteria relevant to evaluating each type of argument will differ
from some of the criteria appropriate to evaluating either of the others.
That is, not all arguments are subject to evaluation by the same criteria or standard
o Toulmin introduces the concept of field because he wishes to explore the standards by which
arguments can be assessed.
o Some standards for assessing arguments belong specifically to a particular field, and these
standards Toulmin called field-dependent.
o Other standards for assessing arguments apply regardless of the field in which the argument is
advanced.
Herrick, Ch 9
o
o
o
4
Toulmin called these standards, field-invariant.
Thus, when an argument about whether a particular law should be applied to a particular action,
standards appropriate to the interpretation of law would be among the field-dependent factors that
might come into play.
Standards regarding the underlying logic of the arguments advanced--for example, whether a
logical fallacy had been committed—would be among the field-invariant standards that could be
applied to the arguments on both sides.
Habermas and communicative competence
o Habermas also discussed in connection with universal pragmatics the notion of communicative
competence, the conditions under which rational communication is possible.
o Communication competence involves three elements, according to Habermas.
o First, a truth claim is shared by speaker and hearer. A speaker makes a claim that both
speaker and listener understand in a similar fashion. A failure to accurately interpret truth
claims constitutes a failure in communication competence.
o Second, the hearer understands and accepts the speaker's intention; beneath the truth
claim the competent listener understands a motive.
o Third, the communicatively competent speaker adapts to the hearer's worldview, that is,
adapts arguments to her or his audience.
ideologies
o For Habermas, critical theory, the systematic means of analyzing discourse for its hidden
assumptions and implications, liberates by providing criticism of ideologies, defined as irrational,
unexamined, or coercive systems of thinking.
o For Habermas, false ideologies lead to false thinking, which in turn leads to false consciousness-a flawed and thus distorting view of reality, of the world, and of people. Critical theory seeks,
through the analysis of ways we talk and think, a new and liberating consciousness.
Terminology questions
Provide the term for the following definitions:
1. claim—Toulmin's term for an argument's conclusion.
2. data—Toulmin's term for the evidence to support the claim.
3. communicative action—In Habermas, the interactive process of critical argumentation, a key to
overcoming the problems of ideological domination.
4. elite audience—In Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, an audience of trained specialists in a
discipline.
5. false consciousness—In Habermas, a flawed and thus distorting view of reality, of the world,
and of people caused by the acceptance of a false ideology.
6. field-dependent—Toulmin's term for standards of argument assessment that belong specifically
to a particular field.
7. field-invariant—Toulmin's term for standards of argument assessment that apply regardless of
the field in which the argument is advanced.
8. presence—In Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, emphasizing certain ideas and facts over others,
thus encouraging an audience to attend to them.
9. Quintilian's uncertainty principle—In Billig, the notion that the variety of possible human
responses to any situation means that the rules of rhetoric must always be provisional, never
absolute.
Herrick, Ch 9
5
10. rhetorical opposition—In Billig, the observation of the Sophist Protagoras that there are two
sides to every question, because every form of human thought has its opposite.
11. starting points—In Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, points of agreement between a rhetor and
an audience which allow for argumentation to develop
12. universal audience—In Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, an imagined audience consisting of the
whole of mankind,or at least, of all normal, adult persons
13. universal pragmatics—In Habermas, rules for using and understanding language rationally
14. warrant—Toulmin's term for a generalization linking some data to a claim.