16.2239, Review: Pragmatics/History of Ling: Grootendorst, et al.

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2239. Fri Jul 22 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.2239, Review: Pragmatics/History of Ling: Grootendorst, et al.

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 22-Jul-2005
From: Eileen Smith < eileensmith2444 at yahoo.com >
Subject: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:57:33
From: Eileen Smith < eileensmith2444 at yahoo.com >
Subject: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation 
 

AUTHORS: Grootendorst, Rob; van Eemeren, Frans 
TITLE: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation 
SUBTITLE: The pragma-dialectical approach 
YEAR: 2004 
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press 
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-362.html


Eileen Smith, Language Arts Division, Shasta College

OVERVIEW

The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentative discourse provides a 
model for a regulated exchange of ideas in which the participants 
critically and systematically analyze the acceptability of positions on an 
issue with the shared goal of arriving at a resolution. The pragmatic 
aspect manifests itself in the performance in argumentative discourse of a 
complex speech act which is as an interactive speech event that takes 
place within a specific context and situation. The dialectical dimension 
to evaluating argumentative discourse concentrates on ways in which 
standpoints can be critically evaluated. The model combines applied 
research in empirically-based linguistic descriptions, especially work in 
discourse analysis, with philosophical and theoretical work from formal 
logic. In this approach, argumentative discussion, both as communicative 
process and product, is part of normative pragmatics or ordinary language 
use as viewed from a critical perspective. In the 196 page-book, the 
authors delineate a complete approach to argumentation studies that 
provides tools for the production, analysis, and critical evaluation of 
argumentative discourse. In the course of eight chapters, the authors 
first provide their definition of argumentation, survey the background and 
history of theory underlying their approach, and identify four problem 
areas within argumentative discourse that provide the framework for the 
model; then, they provide an explicit description of the model with all 
its theoretical and practical ramifications. 

SYNOPSIS 

Chapter 1. Introduction (pp.1-8)
Chapter 1 defines argumentation and gives an overview of the scope of the 
book. The chapter begins with a stipulative definition of argumentation 
that emphasizes its two key aspects, process and product. As process, 
argumentation is a goal-oriented activity that functions on verbal, 
social, and rational levels: verbal because it involves language use; 
social because it is directed at another person; rational because it is an 
intellectual activity. The goal of the activity of argumentation is to 
convince a critic of the acceptability of a position or stance. The critic 
to be convinced is assumed to be reasonable. The product is the argument 
itself, expressed in the form of propositions. One strives to convince the 
critic by putting forth propositions that justify or refute the position 
or stance. The distinction draws on speech act theory, specifically 
Searle's distinction between communicative force and propositional content 
(Searle 1969: 29-33). Overall, argumentation theory research focuses on 
the production of argumentative discourse, both written and oral, along 
with its analysis and critical evaluation. Four problem areas surface in 
this research: unexpressed elements in argumentative discourse, 
argumentation structures, argument schemes, and fallacies. Only the pragma-
dialectical approach has succeeded in providing solutions in all four of 
these problem areas. Finally, the content of chapters 2-8 is briefly 
summarized.

Chapter 2. The realm of argumentation studies (pp.9-41)
In this chapter, the authors justify the linking of pragmatics and 
dialectics and define the domain of argumentation studies. They argue that 
the two areas in the pragma-dialectical theory, normative idealizations 
and empirically-based descriptions of speech acts, complement one another. 
In linguistic analysis, the moral and practical challenges that surface 
from empirical descriptions of real life argumentative practice provide 
the motivation for theorizing about argumentation. Conversely, while the 
normative rules and procedures of argumentation function in reflective, 
idealized situations, they must also stand the test of discursive reality. 
Systematic linking of the pragmatic and dialectical aspects of the 
argumentative process produces a model that avoids the limitations imposed 
by one area of research or the other. Examination ensues of the five 
estates or areas of research that contribute to argumentation theory and 
constitute a complete program of argumentation study: the philosophical 
estate, the theoretical estate, the analytical estate, the empirical 
estate, the practical estate. The pragma-dialectical approach integrates 
the five estates as follows: a critical-rationalist philosophical position 
combines with a pragma-dialectical theoretical position; an analytical 
position centers around the resolution of differences of opinion; an 
empirical position orients toward the process of convincing; and a 
practical position aims at stimulating reflection. 

Chapter 3. A model of critical discussion (pp.42-68)
The authors trace argumentation studies from the classical roots of the 
theoretical work that ground their theory to the present day. Since 
antiquity, dialectical approaches have concentrated on ways to critically 
evaluate positions or stances in argumentative discourse. Greek writings 
on syllogistic logic (analytica), dialectic (dialectica), and rhetoric 
(rhetorica) remain relevant today. Aristotle's Topica (1928b), De 
sophisticis elenchis (1928a), and Rhetorica (1991) are essential reading 
for students of argumentation theory. During the first century B.C.E. the 
Roman, Cicero (1954, 1949, 1942), also made significant contributions. In 
the early 19th century the U.S. experienced a revival in interest in 
rhetoric, loosely defined as the use of the most suitable means to 
convince a particular audience. A demand for practical, success-oriented 
applications followed, and U.S. interest in rhetoric has continued to 
grow. In the 1950's, the work of Toulmin (1958) and that of Perelman and 
Olbrechts-Tyteca (1958) garnered much attention, but neither provides a 
sufficient framework to supply a justified evaluation of the ways the 
argument schemes serve as warrant. Arne Naess (1953, 1966) and Rupert 
Crawshay-Williams (1957) made significant contributions in the area of 
formal dialectics. The major theorists whose work underlies the pragma-
dialectic approach fall into two areas, pragmatics and dialectics. In 
pragmatics, they include the theory of speech acts as expounded by Austin 
(1962) and Searle (1969); and Grice (1975, 1989) for his work in verbal 
exchanges. In dialectics, the theorists include the formal dialectics of 
Barth and Krabbe (1982) along with the critical rationalism of Popper 
(1972, 1974) and Albert (1975). Four meta-theoretical principles of pragma-
dialectics derived from underlying theory serve as essential 
methodological guidelines in the pragma-dialectical approach: 
functionalizing (every language act is purposeful), externalizing (public 
commitments entailed by language acts), socializing (interaction), and 
dialectifying (resolving differences according to norms of 
reasonableness). Finally, in constructing a model of critical discussion, 
the authors identify four dialectical stages in the process of resolving a 
difference: confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding. Four types 
of speech acts of Searle's typology of five (1979) that can contribute 
constructively to critical discussion are discussed: assertives, 
commissives, directives, and declaratives. The chapter concludes with an 
extended model of a critical discussion, showing the four dialectical 
stages with a distribution of speech acts.

Chapter 4. Relevance (pp.69-94)
Scholars in different disciplines approach the issue of relevance from 
varying perspectives; however, some unifying principles exist that link 
these different views of relevance and irrelevance. Foremost is the notion 
of coherence, including both discourse and textual coherence. Secondly, 
relevance and irrelevance pertain to a particular stage in the discourse. 
Thirdly, relevance and irrelevance stem from relations between parts of 
discourse or text that are functionally connected with the aim of 
realizing a goal. Different approaches to relevance exist as well between 
analysts, depending on their particular purpose and the way in which they 
perceive functionality. Analysts with a linguistic perspective use the 
interpretive (descriptive) approach; analysts who prefer formal or 
informal logic use the evaluative (normative) approach. These two 
approaches interconnect. For instance, anyone performing a speech act 
making a request wants not only that it be understood, but also granted.  
Every interpretation of an individual speech act presumes that an 
evaluation or judgment follows; every evaluation presupposes an 
interpretation. Therefore, any analysis of discourse must make meaningful 
connections between the interpretive and evaluative aspects. The pragma-
dialectical model integrates these two aspects. 

Utilizing an analytical a priori approach, the pragma-dialectical approach 
integrates the work of Searle (1969) and Grice (1989) into relevance 
criteria. It does not draw upon a posteriori descriptions of the 
interpretative procedures used by speakers from an internal perspective, 
what  Pike (1967) termed 'emic' approaches. Instead, a systematic 
analytical or etic (Taylor and Cameron 1987) approach is adopted, one 
based on externalized textual features. No knowledge of the cognitive 
processes involved in the interpretation process is needed. The model 
adopts Searlean emphasis on the communicative function of speech acts, as 
determined by the intentions of the speaker or writer and the conventions 
for language use in the performance of speech acts, and Grician 
interactional aspects, such as the notion of reasonableness. The model 
adopts and adapts Grice's Cooperation Principle, specifically the notions 
of clarity, honesty, efficiency, and relevance, in a broader Communication 
Principle composed of five rules of speech acts for argumentative 
discourse. Three dimensions of relevance are defined: contextual domain, 
or relevance as linked to a particular stage of the discussion; the verbal 
component, or relevance of a specific element within a speech act; the 
relational aspect, or relevance of one speech act to another. The authors 
then illustrate how a relevance issue can be identified in the pragma-
dialectical approach by analysis of a fragment of an argument exchange.  

Chapter 5. Analysis as reconstruction (pp.95-122)
Reconstruction of argumentative discourse entails systematic analysis of 
all components (speech acts) of the argument that contribute to and are 
relevant to the resolution of the disagreement. The relevance of each 
speech act relates to the purpose of each of the four stages of a critical 
discussion in the process of resolution of differences. Such an analytic 
overview provides the "deep structure" of a discourse or text. The pragma-
dialectical model specifies what kinds of speech acts can productively 
contribute to each step of the process. However, certain complications can 
arise in the analysis process. As per the ideal model, an antagonist in a 
discussion must unequivocally express doubt about a position. In practice, 
this does not always occur. Typically, much of the purpose of 
interactional or communicative discourse remains implicit. Also, most 
often no formal recognition is given to identify movement from one stage 
in the discussion to another. Actual targets of the argumentative 
discourse, those whom the participant wishes to convince, may also be 
veiled. For instance, in a political debate, while two parties engage in 
argumentative discourse, both parties may actually direct their comments 
to a larger viewing audience. With an awareness of these possible pitfalls 
to reconstruction of an argumentative discourse, the model can serve well 
as a useful guide to reconstruct an analytic overview. 

A sample of a critical discussion ensues, followed by a model of a pragma-
dialectical reconstruction. The process proceeds in two phases: 
reconstruct the critical discussion and make an analytic overview. Phase 
one has two operations. First the pragmatic aspect of discourse analysis 
comes into play with the reconstruction of the relevant parts of the 
speech acts of a critical discussion. Four transformations apply: deletion 
(elimination of items irrelevant to the argumentation); addition (making 
implicit features explicit); substitution (replace ambiguous or vague 
formulations); permutation (rearrange parts as needed to make the process 
of resolution apparent). Then the analytical aspect serves in the sorting 
of the reconstructed parts of the speech acts into the four stages of a 
critical discussion: confrontation, opening, argumentation, concluding. In 
phase two, an analytic overview that summarizes the critical discussion 
around six principles is constructed. It states the standpoints held by 
participants, the roles (protagonist -antagonist) assumed by each, the 
point of departure of the discussion, the various arguments offered in 
support of each position, the structure of argumentation (simple or 
complex), and the argument schemes that connect the different arguments.  

Chapter 6. Rules for critical discussion (pp.123-157)   
The term "reasonable" plays a crucial role in the pragma-dialectical 
approach that holds to a  critical-rationalistic view of reasonableness. 
First, it must be differentiated from the term "rational." The definition 
of "reasonable" adopted in the model shares all the properties of the 
definition of "rational," with the addition of the aspect of critical 
judgments that are sound. Opposing schools of thought exist as to the 
notion of soundness in argumentation: formal logic applies a formal 
criterion for validity and emphasizes relevance of the argumentation to 
the point in question; the anthropological approach applies a validity 
criterion based on purely empirical grounds and equates soundness with its 
effectiveness on judges in particular cases who represent community 
consensus. The authors follow the critical view of reasonableness, one 
attributed to certain logicians, that values both the shared knowledge 
that is necessary to achieve consensus and the formal properties of 
arguments. A critical rationalist systematically scrutinizes all aspects 
of human thought and activity towards the resolution of differences. The 
underlying assumption is that all human thought is fundamentally fallible. 
The point of departure for reasonableness is critical discussion using the 
dialectical approach, to which critical insights from dialectics, 
geometrical insights from logic, and anthropological insights from 
rhetoric contribute. This approach satisfies problem-solving needs and 
intersubjective acceptability. 

The pragma-dialectical discussion procedure is rule governed, consisting 
of a system of regulations that cover all speech acts required to carry 
out a critical discussion. Fifteen rules apply to all four stages of the 
discussion: confrontation, opening, argumentation, and concluding. The 
rules constitute a necessary condition for the successful resolution of 
opinions, but not necessarily a sufficient condition. The rules fall 
generally into two categories, when one is entitled or obliged to perform 
a particular speech act. Participants are entitled to challenge, calling 
into question the propositional content and the force of justification or 
refutation of every complex speech act. Participants are obliged to defend 
their assertions against a challenge, maintain their pro and con roles 
throughout the discussion, agree upon the rules of procedure, and retract 
the initial position when one participant has proven a standpoint 
conclusively. 

Chapter 7. Fallacies (pp.158-186)
As a result of objections to the traditional definition of a fallacy that 
involved notions of subjectivity and validity, revision has occurred. The 
historical precedents underlying and leading up the current theory include 
work by Aristotle (1928a, 1928b), Locke (1961), Whately (1848), Hamblin 
(1970), Barth and Krabbe (1982). The current preference is to regard 
fallacies as deficient moves in argumentative discourse. Accordingly, 
fallacies are defined by negation as argumentative moves that the rules of 
argumentative discourse *cannot* generate. Fallacies violate the rules of 
argumentative discourse as laid out in Chapter 6, thereby obstructing or 
complicating the resolution of differences between participants in a 
critical discussion. The pragma-dialectic concept of fallacy facilitates 
the analysis of informal fallacies that have created problems for analysis 
in traditional approaches to fallacies as invalid arguments. Violations 
can take various forms on the pragmatic level, centering on the speech act 
itself, the performer of a speech act, or the performance of the speech 
act at the right stage in the critical discussion. A systematic survey of 
the kinds of violations that can obstruct critical discussion during each 
the four stages of a critical discussion  --  confrontation, opening, 
argumentation, and concluding  --  follows. Analysis of two well known 
fallacies, petitio principii (begging the question) and argumentum ad 
hominem, illustrates how each violates particular discussion rules. The 
analysis of the begging-the-question fallacy illustrates the advantages of 
the pragma-dialectical approach. Since the fallacy is logically valid, it 
cannot be analyzed using the traditional method as an invalid argument. 
However, the fallacy violates rule 3 of the discussion procedure, 
identifying it as obstructive to argumentative discourse, hence a fallacy. 
The model allows for the analysis of the whole range of classical 
fallacies.

Chapter 8. A code of conduct for reasonable discussants (pp.187-196)
This chapter discusses the internal conditions that are desirable on the 
part of a participant for a reasonable discussion attitude. It describes 
the characteristics of reasonable discussants and provides ten 
commandments for reasonable discussants. While participants share the goal 
of resolving differences, the primary aim of the activity is not total 
agreement but rather critical questioning and testing of positions for 
their acceptability. In order for the rules to work, participants must 
meet certain criteria. They must be prepared to play by the rules. They 
must express their intentions as clearly as possible and try to not 
misinterpret the opposing view. Participants respect each other's right to 
propose a standpoint and to challenge an opposing view, as well as respect 
the obligation to defend a standpoint when called upon to do so. Attacks 
must relate directly to the standpoint put forth with no distortions of an 
opponent's standpoint.  No rhetorical devices such as pathos or ethos for 
the original standpoint (logos) will be tolerated.  Exaggeration must be 
avoided. No ambiguous language can be used, or deliberate 
misinterpretations of another's standpoint made. Both sides must agree on 
where the starting point of the discussion lies. Reasoning presented as 
formally conclusive must be proved valid in the logical sense. For 
instance, a reconstruction may be required to incorporate an unexpressed 
premise. In the opening stage, participants must agree on argument schemes 
and abide by the choices. To conclude, both parties must agree on the 
success or lack of success of the defense of an argument. 

EVALUATION 

Anyone engaged in studies of argumentation theory or in analysis of 
argumentative discourse would be well served to carefully read and reflect 
upon the pragma-dialectical model for its practical approach to resolving 
differences with civility. In argumentative discourse, which aims to 
convince a reasonable but doubtful critic of a particular standpoint, 
differences naturally arise. With its focus on resolution through 
acceptability criteria and mutual cooperation, the pragma-dialectical 
approach succeeds in providing the means to overcome doubt regarding the 
acceptability of a position and ultimately resolve a difference of 
opinion. 

As the title suggests, the book emphasizes the interface in argumentation 
studies of the work of philosophers and logicians with the expertise of 
linguists and empirically-oriented social sciences, especially those 
engaged in discourse analysis and communication studies. Linguists may 
find the pragmatic aspect of the model interesting since methodical 
discussion moves are described in Searlean (1969) terms as the performance 
of speech acts in a specific cultural historical context. Implicit within 
the model is a code of conduct, the Communication Principle for reasonable 
discussants, derived from the Cooperation Principle outlined by Grice 
(1989). At the core of the pragma-dialectical model lies the concept of 
personal responsibility as an underlying principle that unifies the model. 
The well-defined system of stages, participant roles, parameters of the 
performance of speech acts, and rules of conduct with the view of 
resolving differences of opinion only function if the participants in a 
critical discussion intersubjectively accept the rules of engagement. Once 
the participants agree to abide by the rules, all of the components of the 
model function as intended. The explicitly formulated discussion procedure 
provides a normative model for discussion moves that build towards 
constructive resolution of a difference of position on an issue. 
Conversely, obstacles or destructive moves such as fallacies that the 
block constructive resolution can be identified simply as violations of 
the rules. The latter in particular is useful in that it eliminates lofty 
notions in logic of "absolute" mistakes. 

The book presents the culmination and an impressive distillation of thirty 
years of research by two widely-recognized argumentation scholars in 
critical theory and praxis in the pragma-dialectal approach to 
argumentative discourse. The model itself is simple and accessible, with 
practical uses. While I found the book to have both positive and negative 
qualities, the positive far outweigh the negative. The only negative 
aspect of the book, in my opinion, lay in a tendency towards repetition, 
especially in the beginning. This made for tedious, somewhat laborious 
reading at the onset. However, as I read on, I found that I appreciated 
the repetition of  key concepts as my understanding of them grew 
exponentially with each new application. Positive qualities abounded. I 
found it to have outstanding organization. The research goals, background 
information, and the step-by-step explanation of the model were very easy 
to follow. Explanations of theory and its history were authoritative. For 
example, the discussion about the notion of reasonableness proved to be 
both informed and informative, beginning with coverage of three views of 
reasonableness according to Toulmin's Acting and Knowing (1976): the 
geometrical attempts to show what is (incontrovertible certainty  --  step 
by step); the anthropological view which holds that reasonableness is 
culturally-bound and relative; and the critical view that  maintains 
skepticism and systematic analysis of opposing views. The authors offered 
some keen insights into weaknesses in Toulmin's position while they also 
distinguished between the anthropologico-relativistic position (in which 
what is considered reasonable is a function of the group and the time 
concerned) and the critical perspective. Throughout the book, clear 
examples served to illustrate various points. Ample use of analogy was 
notable, such as in discussion of the various estates in Chapter 2, in 
which the polder region as well as extended application of the rabbi 
anecdote served as examples to illustrate, and in Chapter 4, the X-ray.  

Today, manuals of informal logic used in "critical thinking" courses in 
U.S. universities still bear traces of classical logic and dialectic. 
Almost all have sections devoted to the practical applications. The pragma-
dialectical model offers a clear distinction between the persuasive or the 
epistemo-rhetorical approach to argumentation that is accompanied by 
combative, success-driven attitude toward practical applications, and 
argumentative approaches that strive for resolution of conflict through 
understanding by appeal to the intellect. Those of us engaged in teaching 
argumentative discourse know that our aim is to provide students with 
skills to help them learn how to think, not what to think. In the culture 
of success-driven argumentative schemes so prevalent in so many parts of 
the world today, the pragma-dialectic approach brings fresh insight into 
ways to accomplish this goal. 

REFERENCES

Albert, H. (1975). Traktat über kritische Vernunft. 3rd ed. 1975. 
Tübingen: Mohr. 

Aristotle (1928a). De sophisticis elenchis. W.D. Ross (ed.), Oxford: 
Clarendon Press. 

Aristotle (1928b). Topica. W.D. Ross (ed.), Oxford: Clarendon Press. 

Aristotle (1991). Rhetorica. G.A. Kennedy (ed.), New York/Oxford: Oxford 
University Press. 

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Barth, E. M. & Krabbe, E. C. W. (1982). From Axiom to Dialogue: A 
Philosophical Study of Logic and Argumentation. Berlin/New York: Walter de
Gruyter.  

Cicero (1942). De oratore. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackham (eds.), London: 
Heinemann. 

Cicero (1949). De inventione. M. Hubbell (ed.), London: Heinemann. 

Cicero (1954). Rhetorica ad Herennium. H. Caplan (ed. and transl.), 
London: Heinemann.

Crawshay-Williams, Rupert (1957). Methods and Criteria of Reasoning: An 
Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In: P. Cole and J. Morgan 
(eds.), Syntax and Semantics. Volume 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic 
Press, 41-58.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard 
University Press.

Hamblin, Ch. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Reprinted with a 
preface by J. Plecnik & J. Hoagland. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.  

Locke, J. (1961). Of Reason. In: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 
Book IV, Chapter XVII, 1690. J. W. Yolton (ed.). London: Dent.

Naess, Arne (1953). Interpretation and Preciseness: A Contribution to the 
Theory of Communication. Oslo: Skrifter utgitt ar der norske videnskaps 
academie.

Naess, Arne (1966). Communication and Argument: Elements of Applied 
Semantics. London: Allen & Unwin. 

Perelman Ch & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958).  La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité 
de l'argumentation. Paris: Presse Universitaire de France. English 
translation (1969) as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre 
Dame/London: University of Notre Dam Press.

Pike, Kenneth (1967). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the 
Structure of Human Behavior. 's-Gravenhage: Mouton.

Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. 
Oxford: Clarendon.

Popper, K. R. (1974). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of 
Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Searle, J. R.(1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R.(1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of 
Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, T. J. & Cameron, D.(1987). Analyzing Conversation: Rules and 
Unities in the Structure of Talk. Oxford: Pergamon.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge MA: Cambridge 
University Press.

Toulmin, S. E. (1976). Knowing and Acting: An Invitation to Philosophy. 
New York: Macmillan. 

Whately, R. (1848). Elements of Logic, 9th ed. (1st ed. 1826). London: 
Longmans. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER 

Eileen Smith has a Ph.D. in linguistics and currently teaches a variety of 
courses involving critical reasoning and writing at Shasta College, in 
Redding, California. Eileen's research interests center on critical 
discourse analysis as applied to literature, focusing on strategic 
language use in the interplay of language and power.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-2239