| dc.contributor.author | Rood, Craig James | |
| dc.description.abstract | I first describe competitive and cooperative approaches to argumentation, and I claim that cooperative argumentation aligns with the rhetorical tradition yet needs to be developed further. I focus on civil rhetoric as one form of cooperative argumentation. Building off the abstract description of civility offered by Theresa Enos and Kathleen Blake Yancey, I move to the practical level. Blending a quantitative and qualitative approach, I analyze students' writing from an anthology assignment (which pairs collaboration and argumentation) to determine: What kind of civility moves does the anthology assignment foster? In my analysis, I identify six civility moves: (1) common ground, (2) counter-arguments, (3) logic, (4) nuance, (5) openness, and (6) tone. I then claim that rhetoric which includes the six civility moves-along with attention to ethos and the rhetorical situation's structure-can lead to more productive arguments and
argumentation in both our classrooms and wider culture. | en_US |
| dc.publisher | North Dakota State University | en_US |
| dc.rights | NDSU Policy 190.6.2 | |
| dc.title | Collaborative Argumentation: Toward a More Civil Rhetoric | en_US |
| dc.type | Master's paper | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-12-18T17:16:41Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-12-18T17:16:41Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10365/29101 | |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Rhetoric. | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Persuasion (Rhetoric) | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Reasoning. | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Critical thinking. | en_US |
| dc.subject.lcsh | Debates and debating. | en_US |
| dc.rights.uri | https://www.ndsu.edu/fileadmin/policy/190.pdf | en_US |
| ndsu.degree | Master of Arts (MA) | en_US |
| ndsu.college | Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences | en_US |
| ndsu.department | English | en_US |
| ndsu.program | English | en_US |
| ndsu.advisor | Rupiper-Taggart, Amy | |
