Abstract
The paper addresses the manner in which the theory of Coalescent Argumentation [CA] has been received by the Argumentation Theory community. I begin (section 2) by providing a theoretical overview of the Coalescent model of argumentation as developed by Michael A. Gilbert (1997). I next engage the several objections that have been raised against CA (section 3). I contend that objectors to the Coalescent model are not properly sensitive to the theoretical consequences of the genuinely situated nature of argument. I conclude (section 4) by suggesting that the resolution to the dispute between Gilbert and his objectors hinges on the outcome of several foundational theoretical questions identified over the course of the paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bailin, Sharon: 2000, ‘Truth and Reconciliation: Comments on Coalescence’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Elmar Sveda (eds.), Argumentation at the Century's Turn: Proceedings of the Third OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.
Benoit, Pamela J. and William L. Benoit: 1990, ‘To Argue or Not to Argue’, in Robert Trapp and Janice Schuetz (eds.), Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL, pp. 55-72.
Brockriede, Wayne: 1975, ‘Where is Argument?’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 11, 197-182 (Reprinted in Trapp and Schuetz, 1990).
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1997, Coalescent Argumentation, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995a, ‘Arguments and Arguers’, Teaching Philosophy 18(2), 125-138.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995b, ‘Coalescent Argumentation’, Argumentation 9, 837-852.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995c, ‘The Delimitation of “Argument”’, Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 15, 63-75.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1995d, ‘What is an Emotional Argument? or Why do Argument Theorists Quarrel with their Mates?’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Analysis and Evaluation: Vol. 2, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 3-12.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1994a, ‘Multi-Modal Argumentation’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 24(2), 159-177.
Gilbert, Michael A.: 1994b. 'Feminism, Argumentation and Coalescence’, Informal Logic 16(2), 95-113.
Godden, David M.: 2001, ‘On the Relation between Argumentation and Inference’, presented at Argumentation and its Applications: Fourth OSSA Conference, May 17-19, Windsor, ON.
Godden, David M.: 2000a. 'Psychologism in Contemporary Argumentation Theory’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Elmar Sveda (eds.), Argumentation at the Century's Turn: Proceedings of the Third OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.
Godden, David M.: 2000b, ‘Review of C. Tindale Acts of Arguing’, Philosophy in Review 20(5), 384-386.
Godden, David M.: 1998, ‘Commentary on Jose Plug: Indicators of Obiter Dicta’, in Hans V. Hansen, Christopher W. Tindale and Athena V. Colman (eds.), Argumentation and Rhetoric: Proceedings of the Second OSSA Conference, OSSA, St. Catherines, ON.
Johnson, Ralph H.: 2000, Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Johnson, Ralph H.: 1995, ‘Informal Logic and Pragma-Dialectics: Some Differences’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Perspectives and Approaches: Vol. I, Proceedings of the Third ISSA Conference on Argumentation, Sic Sat, Amsterdam, pp. 237-245.
Miller, Kathleen: 1995, ‘A Feminist Defence of the Critical-Logical Model’, Informal Logic 17, 337-346.
O'Keefe, Daniel J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Argument’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13(3), 121-128.
Pinto, Robert C.: 2001, ‘Commentary on D. Godden “On the Relation between Argumentation and Inference”’, presented at Argumentation and its Applications: Fourth OSSA Conference, May 17-19, Windsor, ON.
Tindale, Christopher W.: 1999, Acts of Arguing: A Rhetorical Model of Argument, SUNY Press, New York.
Toulmin, Stephen E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Trapp, Robert and Janice Schuetz (eds.): 1990, Perspectives on Argumentation: Essays in Honor of Wayne Brockriede, Waveland, Prospect Heights, IL.
Warnick, Barbara: 1998, ‘Review of M.A. Gilbert Coalescent Arumentation’, Argumentation 12, 427-430.
Wenzel, Joseph W.: 1980, ‘Perspectives on Argument’, in J. Rhodes and S. Newell (eds.), Proceedings of the 1979 Summer Conference on Argumentation, Speech Communication Association, pp. 112-133.
Wenzel, Joseph W.: 1987, ‘The Rhetorical Perspective on Argument’, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair and Charles A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline, Proceedings of the 1986 Conference on Argumentation, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland, pp. 101-109.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Godden, D.M. Arguing at Cross-Purposes: Discharging the Dialectical Obligations of the Coalescent Model of Argumentation. Argumentation 17, 219–243 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024032009784
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024032009784