Estella


 * //Handbook of Research on Writing// Edited by Charles Bazerman**

__Chapter 36: Persuasion, Audience, and Argument__ by Carolyn Miller & Davida Charney


= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =**History of Rhetoric** =
 * Emerged in response to the demands of governance in ancient Greece and Rome, where citizens and leaders would conduct business in public forums and assemblies.
 * Developed and refined by pedagogues: Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero
 * Rhetoric theories assumed that a speaker in a large assembly appealed to listeners by drawing on knowledge of the community values by making skillful use of performative gestures and vocal qualities as well as verbal language and argument.

Writing, in turn, is dangerous because it "reduces the mental discipline necessary for composing, memorizing, and delivering an address" (Miller & Charney, 2008)
 * Pivotal figure**: PLATO, who rejected both writing and persuasion, denouncing rhetoric as a threat to social disorder. Plato argued that rhetoric was “//the art of flattery and had no use of seeking truth//”. He suggested that persuasion was dangerous because it is derived from partial interests and it seeks advantage rather than truth.

Aristotle rejected Plato's idea and suggested the importance of rhetoric lies not in seeking truth, but how to communicate the subjective "truth" effectively through persuasion. He is often credited with developing the basics of the systems of rhetoric. His book, //The Rhetoric// is regarded as a the most fundamental writing on persuasion. In it, he describes the three basic elements of persuasive writing. Aristotle's The Rhetoric

The invention of writing weakened the presumption that persuasion depended on a proximate audience and oral modality. Theorists recognized that the written modality would affect the author's persuasive options. Writing changed the concept of communication:
 * writing transforms the particularity of an oral situation into a universalized space
 * writing transforms persuasion into logic (what an audience is willing to accept vs. what a hearer //should// accept)
 * writing transforms an audience into readers (present, participating collectivity vs. distant, fragmented plurality)
 * writing transforms performance into text

=Questions Concerning Audience =



What counts as an audience and what audience counts?
In //The New Rhetori//c, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969) define the audience as "the ensemble of those whom the speaker wishes to influence by his argumentation".
 * Particular Audience vs. Universal Audience:**
 * Universal Audience (the whole of mankind)- an imagined composite of people that must be convinced, and must be approached with facts and truth. This audience serves as the ethical and argumentative test for the author.
 * Particular Audience, depends on circumstance and situation. Real people characterized by specific individuals that make up the audience, can be persuaded by approaching values.

**Convincing a universal audience is known to be ethically superior to persuading a particular audience ** The New Rhetoric

How do a writer's assumptions about audience affect the production of a text?[[image:audience.jpg width="264" height="272" align="right"]]
A writer's decision about the form, style, and content of a text are heavily influenced by audience assumptions. Writers decide how much to elaborate based on what they believe their audience already knows. For example:
 * When readers are seen as knowledgeable, writers often omit details that are assumed common knowledge.
 * Middle school students wrote more descriptively when writing to their overseas peers than their teachers.

How do writers approach indifferent or resistant readers?
Indifference is common when a writer advances new ideas that require readers to overturn current beliefs. Writers, then, must situate new ideas in the context of old ones.

How do writers learn to accommodate an audience?
Progressing from "Writer-based" to "Reader-based" > this happens across college, graduate, and professional careers
 * CASE STUDIES:**
 * 1) Undergraduate students have difficulty adopting an authoritative stance and believed that their personal insights and experiences have no place in academic writing.
 * 2) Graduate students had a difficult time identifying which citations would make them sound knowledgeable.

Writing instruction needs to focus on addressing actual audiences and present writers with feedback from representative readers.

=Questions Concerning Argument =

How is argument conceptualized?
Argument is the rational component of persuasion, whereas persuasive appeals to emotion and character are set aside as the non-rational components. Syllogistic logicwas taken as the normative standard for argument, under the assumption that logical validity guarantees truth. However, this was repudiated because so often the powerful would impose their "truths" on the powerless.

The emphasis on the argumentation process has led to interest in "deliberative democracy" to investigate whether and how argumentation can serve truth, justice, and power at the same time. In deliberative democracy, argument can be seen as a quest for justice.

Are there criteria for valid or effective argument?
> **Claim** A conclusion that must be established. Example: “I am a British citizen.” Facts that appeal as a foundation for the claim. Example: “I was born in London.” A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. Example: “A man born in London will legally be a British citizen.” **Backing** Credentials designed to certify the statement expressed in the warrant; backing must be introduced when the warrant itself is not convincing enough to the readers or the listeners or if it is not deemed credible. **Rebuttal** Statements recognizing the restrictions which may legitimately be applied to the claim. The rebuttal is exemplified as follows: “A man born in London will legally be a British citizen, unless he has betrayed Britain and has become a spy of another country.” Words or phrases expressing the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Such words or phrases include “probably,” “possible,” “impossible,” “certainly,” “presumably,” “as far as the evidence goes,” and “necessarily.” The claim “I am definitely a British citizen” has a greater degree of force than the claim “I am a British citizen, presumably.”
 * ethical standards relating the rhetor to the audience
 * Foss and Griffen (1995) present a model "invitational rhetoric ", a mode of communicating that offers an effective response to the diversity that characterizes the world. In an invitational approach, speakers communicate not to win or to prove superiority but to clarify ideas and to achieve understanding for all participants in an interaction. This was designed to promote "equality, immanent value, and self-determination".
 * Audience-based text evaluations methods (surveys, focus groups, comprehension tests) can be used to obtain descriptive information about the effectiveness of arguments.
 * Stephen Toulmin (1958) suggests assessing arguments by distinguishing between field -invariant and field-dependent criteria. In his book, //The Uses of Argument (1958)//, Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim. He proposed six interrelated components for analyzing arguments.
 * field-invariant: formal or analytical
 * field- dependent: substantive or material
 * Ground ** (Evidence, Data)
 * Warrant **
 * Qualifier **


 * Evaluative judgments should be made within fields, not between fields because these fields have different goals for argumentation, degrees of formality varies, and modes or resolution differ.
 * Evaluations should be made by members or practitioners within the field.

Toulmin, S. (1969). //The Uses of Argument//, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Toulmin's Model of Argument