Book Review 

INFORMAL LOGIC 
XII!.3, Fall 1991 

Charles Willard's A Theory of Argumentation 

DAVID ZAREFSKY Northwestern University 

Willard, Charles. (1989). A Theory of 
Argumentation. Tuscaloosa: University of 
Alabama Press. Pp. x + 324. ISBN 
0-8173-0427-4. US $38.95 

Informal logicians who believe that, by 
rejecting the strictures of formalism, they 
study real arguments in situated contexts, 
are in for a rude shock upon reading this 
book. Willard believes that formal and 
informal logic are essentially alike in their 
reliance on texts-serial predications, as 
he calls them. In his view, texts are not 
arguments but only their residue. Argu-
ment is not a species of logic at all, but of 
communication. To recognize that fact is 
to liberate argumentation studies from the 
burdens of applied formalism and norma-
tive rationality, and to invite research and 
theory around the question of what people 
actually do when they argue. 

A Theory of Argumentation is the full-
est exposition of a point of view Willard 
has maintained consistently since the late 
1970s. His focus has not been on the 
claims made hy arguers but on the kind of 
interaction in which people maintain what 
they construe to be incompatible proposi-
tions. Process rather than text is his pri-
mary interest. This book is particularly a 
sequel to Argumentation and the Social 
Grounds of Knowledge (1983), which 
explored the significance of argument 
fields but which assumed the value of 
defining argument as interaction and of an 
empirical rather than normative perspec-
tive. Willard's central purpose in the most 

recent book is to substantiate these assump-
tions, redeeming the debt he incurred in the 
earlier volume. He does that, and more. 

The book is divided into three major 
sections. The first develops the interac-
tional perspective on argument, drawing 
on symbolic interactionism, constructiv-
ism, and message design logics. Argu-
ments are described as emergent-they 
take place over time, as arguers act "in 
concert, collaboratively creating, shaping, 
and changing events by interpreting their 
options and strategically adapting to the 
expectations and actions of others" (po 67). 
This point of view is related to speech act 
theory and to concepts of the rhetorical 
situation, and is contrasted with a view of 
argument as a complex of claims and 
reasons. Willard ventures an explanation 
of how controversies arise and dissipate. 

Willard's answer, then, to the question 
of what people do when they argue is that 
they create and validate knowledge. He 
believes that the process of arguing, above 
and beyond any texts that may be pro-
duced, has epistemic consequences. But he 
is careful to avoid an inflated version of 
this claim such that the content of any 
utterance counts as knowledge. Rather, he 
states: "In ceding one's private preroga-
tives to the public court, one becomes open 
to social pressures, the burden of rejoinder 
and tu quoque possibility, which make for 
critical weighing of one's claims" (p. 130). 
Finally, in this section, Willard explores 
the relationships between argument and 
authority. Taken as a whole, the first 



188 David Zarefsky 

section of the book is a thorough and care-
ful articulation of Willard's interactional 
perspective. The maturation of fifteen 
years' research, it both synthesizes and 
fills gaps in his earlier work. 

In the second section of the book Wil-
lard takes aim squarely at the normative 
assumptions that underlie traditional argu-
mentation studies-that argument is an 
instrument of rationality and freedom. 
These assumptions, Willard believes, 
reflect exaggerated pedagogical justifica-
tions for teaching argumentation skills and 
a highly individualistic Enlightenment 
notion of the nature of rationality and free-
dom which has little basis in fact. Willard 
"so redefines their conceptual horizons as 
to sever both constructs from their histori-
cal roots" (p. 143). He regards rationality 
as a kind of "playing by the rules" which is 
a sign of arguers' good will. This approach 
dovetails with the earlier book in which 
"the rules" are shown to rest in the shared 
construct systems that define argument 
fields. This is fundamentally an anthropo-
logical rather than a normative or pedagog-
ical standard of rationality. In cases of 
interfield disputes Willard believes that 
rationality rests in the nonclosure princi-
ple: a field should not close off challenges 
to its basic premises. 

The relationship between argumenta-
tion and freedom, Willard believes, is para-
doxical. Rather than simply being 
conjoined with freedom, "it sells discipline 
packaged in a rhetoric of freedom" (p. 
203). Willard explores how a recognition 
of this paradox avoids placing all the 
responsibility for critique on the individual 
and also avoids reliance on such counter-
factual constructs as the universal audience 
or the ideal speech situation. 

The final section of the book is devoted 
to the implications of the interactional 
view for argumentation as a discipline. 
Disciplines develop as communities, rather 
than as rigorous systems of thought; they 
accommodate discordant theories. Willard 
explores how the interactional and logical 

perspectives on argument can relate. The 
chapter on fallacies should be of special 
interest to informal logicians, since 
Willard maintains that they have stripped 
the concept of fallacy of any meaning by 
using it indiscriminately to refer to any 
kind of failing in argument Doing so 
includes under the rubric of "fallacies" 
argument practices which, in context, do 
not warrant condemnation. The last chap-
ters explore the sphere of relevance of the 
argumentation discipline and the concepts 
of position and situation. 

Willard believes that "a theory of argu-
ment can be the empirical basis of a philos-
ophy of the public sphere" (p. 10). Behind 
his larger project is the desire to under-
stand how communities develop knowl-
edge, especially the knowledge that 
permits adjudication of disputes which 
cross field boundaries. Both this book and 
its predecessor rely on a concept of the 
public sphere which, one hopes, will be 
fleshed out in Willard's next book. 

This book is difficult reading, partly 
because Willard's writing style makes his 
ideas needlessly inaccessible and partly 
because he often refers to entire systems of 
thought in an overly shorthanded way. The 
often informal, conversational writing 
style may seem discordant but is especially 
appropriate for a work emphasizing that 
arguments are interactions; Willard is 
explicitly engaging the reader in a 
conversation. A more serious difficulty is 
Willard's straw-person argument against 
studies of argument products. Simply put, 
it is not necessary to denigrate textual stud-
ies in order to emphasize the importance of 
studying interactions. Willard recognizes 
as much in the final section of the book, 
when he describes a discipline's ability to 
accommodate competing theories. This 
ecumenical spirit should have informed the 
earlier chapters as welL It would remove a 
false issue and deny Willard's critics a 
cheap shot. 

A Theory of Argumentation appears as 
a volume in the Studies in Rhetoric and 



Review of Willard 189 

Communication published by the Univer-
sity of Alabama Press. (Although I am one 
of the General Editors of this series, I did 
not review Willard's manuscript or partici-
pate in its acceptance by the Press.) A gen-
eral aim of the series is to illuminate the 
complex nature of specific communication 
practices. Willard's volume achieves this 
aim admirably. It merits the attention of 
serious students of informal logic. They 
will not agree with all of its contents but it 
should stimulate them-and others-to 
reexamine their own assumptions. Beyond 

that, scholars should undertake the 
research on argument practices which ulti-
mately will determine whether Willard's 
interactional perspective has the utility and 
explanatory power that will justify his 
desire to reconstruct the discipline from 
the ground up. 

DAVID ZAREFSKY 
SCHOOL OF SPEECH 
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY 
EVANSTON. IL 60208·2260 

CTNEWS 
Center for the Reasoning Arts 

California State University, Sacramento 

tAilor: I'"rry Weddle 

Since 1982 Crillcal Thinkin(: News. a.k.". ~ Ims furnished revorlage, teaching tips, theory, 
hihliogrnvhy. nnnullncements, lexthook reviews, exercises, logic prohlems, lestlng slralegles ... Four times 
ver acndemic yellr. Its "enue is "the reasoning arts" •• logic, rationality, problem'solving, decision 
milking, the media. lind pllhlic processes for regislering choice. 0: ~ Cllls ncross lines of discipline, 
educlltionalle"els, and factional houndarles. II s goal is our students' reasonahilily. (Oh yes, nnd ours.) 

I.lnlil reecnlly ~ WII' free, milking mail· list exp,mslon prohihilively expensive. Allasl n scheme 
Is in placl" allowing you to receive the l)Ublication. ~ does nol hike ordinnry suhscrlptions. 
Instead. do two easy things: (I) lIonestly consider slIbmilling co"y yourself (strangely. simple news has 
been hard.-r to garner Ihan high Iheory); (2) slIbmil a STARTlJl' DONATION." ONE·TIME CHARGE. 
ThaI's all. We would be 1,lea.""d were you to join liS. 

Il.S. fllllds "lease. $10. $15 Canada/Mexico ($18 oversellS. $36 Institutions, which Includes in·house 
rel)rodlldion rights.) Make cheques payahle 10 Fllnd ror the Reasoning Arls. Send to: 

Cenler for Ihe Reasoning Arls 
c/o Depl of Philosophy 

California State U nlversUy Sucramento 
Sacramenlo, CA 95819.6033 

o