This research explores the dynamics of interpersonal arguing in South Korea by considering cultural influence, individual traits, and contexts. In a cross-cultural study where Koreans were compared to U.S. Americans on basic measures of argument orientations, several interesting contrasts emerged, along with considerable similarity. Koreans evaluated conflicts more positively than Americans even though they were more worried about the relational consequences of arguing. Within the Korean sample, sex difference was pronounced. Study 2 found that power distance orientation was critical individual-level (...) cultural value for Koreans’ argument motivations. When power distance orientation was controlled, argument partner’s social status was significantly associated with Koreans’ motivation to both avoid and approach arguing but not with verbal aggressiveness. The discussion highlights the importance of considering situational as well as individual factors in intercultural studies. (shrink)

We submit a normative pragmatic theory of exhorting—an account of conceptually necessary and potentially efficacious components of a coherent strategy for securing a sympathetic hearing for efforts to urge and inspire addressees to act on high-minded principles. Based on a Gricean analysis of utterance-meaning, we argue that the concept of exhorting comprises making statements openly urging addressees to perform some high-minded, principled course of action; openly intending to inspire addressees to act on the principles; and intending that addressees’ recognition of (...) the intentions to urge and inspire creates reasons for addressees to grant a sympathetic hearing to what the speaker has to say. We show that the theory accounts for the design of Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. By doing so we add to the inventory of reasons why social actors make arguments, continue a line of research showing the relationship of arguing to master speech acts, and show that making arguments can be an effective strategy for inspiring principled action. (shrink)

Making arguments makes reasons apparent. Sometimes those reasons may affect audiences’ relationships to claims. But an over-emphasis on audience effects encouraged by functionalist theories of argumentation distracts attention from other things that making arguments can accomplish. We advance the normative pragmatic program on argumentation through two case studies of how early advocates for women’s suffrage in the U.S. made reasons apparent in order to show that what they were doing wasn’t ridiculous. While it might be possible to identify this as (...) a new function of argumentation, we encourage instead attention to a more important question: explaining how all the diverse uses of argument have pragmatic force. (shrink)

In this paper, we report on the orientations of Turkish college students to interpersonal arguing and compare them with American students’ predispositions for arguing. In measuring the argument orientations, a group of instruments was utilized: argument motivations, argument frames, and taking conflict personally. Turkish data come from 300 college students who were asked to complete self-report surveys. Analyses contrast the mean scores of the Turkish and American respondents, offer gender-based comparisons in the Turkish data, and show whether religiosity has an (...) effect on Turkish students’ arguing orientations. In order to give an explanatory account of the argument motivations of Turkish college students, the relevant socio-cultural and political facts about Turkey were also considered. Our investigation has revealed that Turkish students have more advanced and positive understandings of interpersonal arguing compared to American ones. We have also found clear sex-typing between Turkish male and female students, and have discovered some limited evidence for religiosity’s relevance to interpersonal arguing. (shrink)

This is a descriptive study (_N_ = 243) of how Polish undergraduates and graduates perceive face to face arguing. We had some reasons to suppose that they would not be especially aggressive. The Polish culture has a number of proverbs warning against combative arguing, with “agreement builds and disagreement destroys” being illustrative. In addition, up until 1989 public dissent and open disagreements were suppressed by the government, and older generations often found it prudent to avoid arguing. We compared Polish results (...) with previously reported data from the U.S. and Ukraine. We did, in fact, find that Polish orientations were less aggressive and more other-oriented than the two comparison nations. We also discovered Poland was more wary of engaging in interpersonal conflicts. Distinct sex differences appeared when we compared Polish men and women, with men being more forceful. Correlational patterns, especially concerning argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness, were largely consistent with those originally found in the U.S. Power distance continues to have important connections with the standard argument orientation measures, but its patterns of correlation are not entirely consistent across the relatively small number of nations where the variable has been studied. (shrink)

ABSTRACT It has become standard to conceive of metalinguistic disagreement as motivated by a form of negotiation, aimed at reaching consensus because of the practical consequences of using a word with one content rather than another. This paper presents an alternative motive for expressing and pursuing metalinguistic disagreement. In using words with given criteria, we betray our location amongst social categories or groups. Because of this, metalinguistic disagreement can be used as a stage upon which to perform a social identity. (...) The ways in which metalinguistic disagreements motivated in this way diverge in character from metalinguistic negotiations are described, as are several consequences of the existence of metalinguistic disagreements motivated in this way. (shrink)

The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...) reasons, for deductive arguments, e.g., semantic tableaux are suggested. (shrink)

Walton has distinguished among several sorts of argumentative dialogues. This paper continues the project of measuring individuals’ self-reported preferences for each dialogue type. In this study, long-term romantic couples were surveyed to examine if their dialogue preferences matched, and whether their preferences were, in turn, related to their relational satisfaction.