IC #2: from Modern Argument to Dialectic

For our second "Weekly" of the semester, I'm assigning you an Intertextual Conversation again, which asks you to employ one of our principal course methodologies—putting topical readings into explicit and implicit conversation with each other—towards achieving new discovery (and even meta-discovery). As before, for this assignment, you'll be synthesizing the work of two theorists in order to better understand their claims, their antecedents, their positions, and their position-ing within the field. The advantage you have is that this week's "theoretical turn" reflects some of the realizations we came to near the end of last week. The question of rhetoric's role in/as epistemic, and the assumption that rhetorical theories of invention need to accommodate more dialectical forms of reality construction may provide a useful backdrop for why and how this week's theorists reprise the questions that they do from histories of classical rhetoric.

The Task
Select one set of authors from this list below and describe how Author B's work reflects either a response to, a disruption of, a continuation of, or a reframing of Author A's arguments:

• Author A = Toulmin; Author B = Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (PO-T)
• Author A = Toulmin; Author B = Quigley
• Author A = Bizup and Kneupper ; Author B = Quigley
• Author A = Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca (PO-T); Author B = Dearin and Condit

If it helps you to do so, you may absolutely invoke your authors from last week, so this needn't be an isolated conversation, especially if invoking them would help you to justify a tenuous connection. However, do not feel compelled to do so, especially if you struggle with focus, because I do want you to spend as much time as you can on this week's texts. At risk of sounding repetitive, remember that IC's are brief (~2 single-spaced pages) but that in spite of their brevity, I'll be looking for depth and breadth in your writing—that is, I'll be looking for you to demonstrate that you are beginning to grasp each theorist's overarching argument while also noting its nuances and intricacies, which will inevitably surface when you try to hold their ideas accountable to someone else's. This means that you'll want to demonstrate your skill with writing an analytical summary, considering the methodology or organization underlying each of their arguments, forwarding key terms or concepts that are important to the conversation you are constructing, and providing and citing salient examples from each text. Please include the MLA citation for your readings and use in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your IC where needed.

If it helps you this week, think about your IC as truly helping us to chart a move—either toward or away from a particular stance, imperative, position, or ideology.
 
Submission
Please bring a hard copy of IC #2 to class on 9/11. I will make time to discuss them so that you can share some of your results with each other before I collect them.

Do well but have fun with it,
-Dr. Graban