Argumentation (2020) 34:543–545

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09539-7

BOOK REVIEW

Review of Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical Studies

About Argumentative Discourse in Context, eds. Frans H. van
Eemeren and Bart Garssen

Ann Burnette1 

Accepted: 4 September 2020 / Published online: 25 September 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Since Aristotle first identified the enthymeme as a rhetorical syllogism in Ars Rhe-
torica, scholars and practitioners have sought to identify, catalogue, and understand
the dynamics of argumentation. What are the most effective ways to make claims
and offer evidence? The historical study of argumentation has drawn from disci-
plines including rhetoric, philosophy, and logic, and has produced models that range
from classical argumentation theory to the study of pragma-dialectics. This breadth
of approaches is represented in Argumentation in actual practice: Topical studies
in argumentative discourse in context. This collection presents argumentation case
studies from media, political, medical, educational, legal, and military contexts. The
authors of these chapters use a variety of approaches to explain the function of argu-
mentation in these situations. Taken individually, these essays each illustrate, inter-
rogate, and extend current theoretical work on argumentation. What this volume
does as a whole, however, is highlight the many complex questions and tensions
inherent in studying argumentation.
One such question is what, exactly, researchers mean when they say “argumen-
tation.” Baker and Schwarz point out that when scholars study argumentation in a
learning environment, they usually focus on argumentation as the subject of learn-
ing. But argumentation is also a component of the educational process, and Baker
and Schwarz provide the frame of argumentexturing to broaden learning theory and
to extend argumentation theory “beyond adversarial public debate towards the pos-
sibility of taking into account knowledge-rich collaborative activities” (209). Perret-
Clermont et al. study the reasoning of children and argue that viewing argumenta-
tion as a “contribution to a critical discussion” rather than a “skill” provides insight
into children’s developmental psychology (232). Kloosterhuis and Smith trace dif-
ferent conceptions of the Rule of Law to divergent understandings of how argumen-
tation functions in the legal context. The classical view of the Rule of Law frames
legal reasoning as the use of strict deductive arguments, while the application of

* Ann Burnette
ab11@txstate.edu
1
Texas State University, 601 University Drive, San Marcos, TX 78666, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
544
A. Burnette

more interpretative argumentative reasoning produces a “richer conception of the

Rule of Law” (279).
This volume also highlights the complexity of argumentation research, in terms of
both the phenomena researchers study and the methods they use to enrich argumen-
tation theory. Brambilla studies the use of multiple messages and different platforms
in the Greenpeace Detox Campaign. He notes that multimodality works to “render
the prototypical argumentative pattern more ‘colourful,’ rich and persuasive” (192)
while also reducing the complexity of scientific arguments. Akkermans et al., inte-
grate quantitative methods in their study of the forms that argumentation can take in
medical shared decision-making between doctors and patients. The researchers offer
the possibility that “doctors can fit their argumentation in better with the patient’s
practical and emotional needs” (262).
Scholars in this volume also ask whether we need to reconsider the nature and
utility of argumentative fallacies. Fallacies are typically considered examples of
incorrect or ineffective argumentation, but are there instances when a fallacy is not
necessarily a fallacy? And how should interlocutors respond to obvious fallacies?
In his study of Lyndon Johnson’s March 31, 1968, address to the American people,
Zarefsky identifies five positions of ambiguity that Johnson crafted. The ambiguities
operated at different levels: some concerned fact, some concerned interpretation, and
some concerned evaluation. In each case, Zarefsky argues, Johnson’s use of ambigu-
ity was deliberate and enabled Johnson to engage a heterogeneous and divided audi-
ence. Ambiguity, Zaresky argues, “sometimes may be a very creative and construc-
tive use of language that enhances the interest of all participants and contributes
to resolving a disagreement” (113). In a similar vein, Rowland examines Donald
Trump’s campaign rhetoric during public appearances and on Twitter to illuminate
how Trump won the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign despite violating expectations
about campaign rhetoric. As Rowland points out, by the standards of argumentation
theory, Trump “failed to make a coherent case for his agenda” (132). Instead, Trump
won a loyal following by conveying an empowering narrative that communicated the
values of patriotism and strength. Mehltretter and Herbeck also revisit the 2016 U.S.
presidential election to conduct a rhetorical analysis of Trump’s use of ad hominem
attacks. They argue that Trump successfully connected the personal ad hominem
insults to larger issues and made it difficult for the political candidates who were the
targets of Trump’s attacks to defend themselves.
A final issue that emerges is the discrepancy between the way scholars perceive
argumentation and the way audiences process and are persuaded by argumentation
strategies. For instance, how does argumentation theory account for human incon-
sistency when people’s contradictory perceptions of issues undercut sound argumen-
tation? Goodwin notes that sometimes “Individuals… have mixed up ‘internal’ atti-
tudes” that can confound argumentative logic (158). She recommends that “theorists
of argumentation need to pay attention not only to arguments but also to all the other
discourse that makes arguments possible” (169). Doury points to a similar duality in
her analysis of a statement by Nicolas Sarkozy regarding the plain packaging of cig-
arettes. She notes that the “main difference” between the argumentation scholar and
the “ordinary” participant in an argument is that “the ordinary participant is, well,
a participant; he is engaged in the exchanges… to accomplish his own objectives”

13
Review of Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical Studies… 545

(28). Critics and participants may share some interpretations of arguments but may
also differ in others. Jacobs also considers the implications of audiences and argu-
mentation scholars responding differently to persuasive claims. Jacobs reviews his-
torical analyses of Richard Nixon’s so-called “Checkers Speech,” which commonly
conclude that Nixon’s strategies to build his character were hyperbolic and inauthen-
tic. Yet, despite these faults, Nixon received an overwhelmingly positive response
to this speech from the American public. Jacobs observes that most academic pro-
fessionals “do not share the sensibilities or have faith in the values that ordinary
people found embodied by Nixon in his speech” (94). Jacobs recommends that argu-
mentation scholars adopt a position of “Rhetorical Charity” which would require
academics to “test their own judgments and theoretical presuppositions against the
judgments and interpretations that other people find plausible” (85). In the case of
Nixon, Jacobs argues that the audience took Nixon “seriously but not literally” and
that argumentation critics must also do so in order to judge the power of Nixon’s
argument (101).
In recounting these essays, I have necessarily left other, equally compelling stud-
ies undiscussed. They are all worthwhile. Overall, these essays illustrate that any
one theory does not fully capture the texture, imagination, and nuance of argu-
ments in real-life contexts or explain how multiple interpretations may be construed.
Because of its rich approach, this book serves as an excellent overview of advanced
argumentation theory and will prove useful to students and instructors. This volume
does not resolve the theoretical tensions that it raises, nor is that its purpose. Rather,
the scholars in this book provide illuminating and sometimes even vexing examples
of how context and human interpretation complicate the theory of argumentation.
Indeed, these tensions are what make argumentation in practice so fascinating and
challenging.

Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13