English 900, Fall 1999

THEORY & PRACTICE OF WRITTEN ARGUMENT

University of Wisconsin-Madison

INSTRUCTOR: David Fleming, PhD

CLASS MEETINGS: TTh, 1:00 - 2:15 p.m., 7105 Helen C. White

CLASS EMAIL: argue-theory@lists.students.wisc.edu

OFFICE: 6187D Helen C. White

OFFICE Hours: W 1:00 - 2:30; R 10:00 - 11:00; and gladly by appointment

PHONE: 263-3367 (o); 236-9703 (h)

EMAIL: jdfleming@facstaff.wisc.edu

1.  Objectives.

In rhetoric and composition, argument was long seen as one of the four "modes" of composition (the other three were exposition, description, and narration - hence, "EDNA") around which the freshman course was organized.  As the teaching and study of composition became more sophisticated in the latter half of this century, argument began to be seen as significantly different from the other three; it was thought more difficult and more important.  In many schools, freshman composition grew to a two-semester course with the second semester devoted to argumentative writing (i.e., the research paper).  More recently still, with the decline of EDNA as an organizing device, the revitalization of classical rhetoric in English Departments, and the rise of more overtly sociological and cognitive approaches to composition, argument has become, for many teachers and scholars, not simply a "mode" but the core of rhetoric itself and the heart of intellectual, professional, and political life.

But once argument becomes a bona fide academic subject, several problems emerge.  For one, the compositionist loses any exclusive purview over it.  As a discipline or field of study, argumentation is a transdisciplinary object of interest to scholars in many areas: philosophy (informal logic), psychology (critical thinking), speech communication (debate), political science, linguistics, etc.  The other thing that happens, once argument is construed as a cognitive and social activity with fundamental intellectual and political implications, is that our original definition of argument1 begins to leak.  Outside of the classroom, the claim + reason(s) complex is always inextricably embedded in particular "real world" situations, and it is the situation, rather than the actual reasoning involved, that often appears to determine the value and effectiveness of an argument.  So questions abound in contemporary argumentation studies: Who argues, and why?  How do they argue?  Can we still talk about good and bad arguments in a "post-rational" world?  How do arguments change across social, cultural, historical, institutional, and practical contexts?  How do people learn to argue?  How should we teach it?

This course is a graduate-level introduction to the history, theory, practice, and pedagogy of argument, as seen from a rhetorical perspective, and with special attention given to the problem of writing.  The course will be divided into three units: historical foundations, the 1958 "turn," and recent research.  There will be a heavy emphasis on history and theory (and thus, a lot of reading, thinking, and discussing).  But we'll be doing other things as well: learning a technical language, practicing different types of argument analysis, improving our own argumentative skills and habits, thinking about pedagogical applications, and developing individual research questions.

2.  Assignments.

1) Written Analyses: these are short exercises, done rather quickly, in which you will use the various theoretical "tools" encountered in the course.  We'll do the majority of these in the first half of the course; each one will be approximately 1-2 pp, typed DS (app. 250-500 words).  A good argument analysis typically has three parts: a brief summary of the argument itself (1¶); the actual analysis, including a brief introduction to the "tool" being used and an application of it to the argument in question (1-2¶); and an evaluation of either or both the argument and/or the tool (does this argument work? what "purchase" does the tool provide?) (1¶).

2) Teaching Project: this is a medium-sized paper consisting of three parts: a) your statement of goals for a self-contained 2-3 week unit on argument in an undergraduate writing course, b) your analysis and evaluation of potential sources (textbooks, sample arguments, etc.) for use in the course, and c) a timeline of teaching activities for the unit (5-7 pp total).

3) Research Project: this is a medium-sized paper to be completed in three stages, each lasting roughly one month: a) a written proposal (1 p) in which you articulate an intellectual problem re: argument, b) an annotated bibliography (4-6 pp) in which you identify and summarize 6-12 sources dealing with that problem, and c) a final paper in which you synthesize relevant research on the problem and record the progress of your own exploration of it (10-12 pp).

3.  Texts.

Aristotle.  (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse.  Trans., George A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford UP.

Billig, Michael. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology, 2nd Edition.  Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Crosswhite, James. (1996). The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions of argument. Madison: U of Wisconsin P.

Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale P.

Kuhn, Deanna. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Perelman, Chaïm, & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson & Purcell Weaver. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P.

Toulmin, Stephen. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

• Fulkerson, Richard. (1996). Teaching the argument in writing. NCTE.

4.  Grades.

Written Analyses 30%
Teaching Project 30%
Research Project 40%
Final Grade = 100%

5.  Calendar