Theses and Dissertations from UMD
Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2
New submissions to the thesis/dissertation collections are added automatically as they are received from the Graduate School. Currently, the Graduate School deposits all theses and dissertations from a given semester after the official graduation date. This means that there may be up to a 4 month delay in the appearance of a give thesis/dissertation in DRUM
More information is available at Theses and Dissertations at University of Maryland Libraries.
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item A Theory of Argumentative Norms: Conceptualizing and Evaluating Domain-Specific Argumentative Expectations(2021) Stoltz, Nathaniel Halkias; Hample, Dale; Communication; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)This project develops and tests a theory, the Theory of Argumentative Norms. The Theory of Argumentative Norms states that individuals carry specific social norms into interpersonal arguments that depend on the goal of the argument—persuasion, inquiry, identity, or play. Conforming to these norms is theorized to lead to optimal argumentative perceptions and outcomes, and violating any of these norms is thus theorized to lead to more negative consequences. The first two chapters detail the theory and its specific normative constructs, leading to the construction of ten hypotheses and a research question. The nature of the theory called for the creation of new instruments and stimuli, so the next two chapters detail the piloting of these measures and materials. The predictions are then tested in two further studies, primarily by the construction and manipulation of dialogic argument vignettes that do or do not contain particular violations, and then asking participants to rate the vignettes for their conformity to argument norms and for other argumentative perception and outcome measures. Findings of the research were mostly supportive of the theory: it was found that norm violations were associated with significantly more negative perceptions than normative arguments, both with respect to in-the-moment perceptions (argument quality, pleasantness) and outcomes (goal attainment, future willingness to argue, escalation). The theory also predicted that different argument goals would be associated with different patterns of outcomes, but these predictions were mostly unsupported.Item Protect, Preserve, and Restore: Fundamentalist Arguments in American Discourse(2022) Attia, Hagar; Parry-Giles, Shawn; Communication; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)Fundamentalism and ideas about fundamentalism are significant obstacles to dialogue and deliberation. Previous scholarly work on fundamentalism may have contributed to a general distaste for fundamentalism and fundamentalists. Some scholars define fundamentalists as people unable, or unwilling, to cope with the conditions of modernity and therefore turn to scriptural literalism, separatism, and traditionalism to maintain their sense of identity. This project seeks to contribute to this scholarly discussion by focusing on the rhetorical dimensions of fundamentalism. This project proposes understanding fundamentalism as a rhetorical concept—a type of argument—with themes and strategies that perform specific types of work in the world. Fundamentalist arguments emerge out of a concern for defending what is believed to be the fundamentals of identity. Those issuing fundamentalist arguments conclude that without the fundamentals of identity, a cherished and universalized identity would be profoundly compromised. In fundamentalist arguments, the universalized identity is threatened when some of its members arguably sully the fundamentals of identity by supporting external contaminants. The ultimate calls to action in fundamentalist argument are to preserve, protect, and restore the integrity of the fundamentals.Chapter One examines fundamentalist argument in the anti-abortion rhetoric of evangelical thinker Francis Schaeffer. For Schaeffer, Roe v. Wade symbolized a nation that broke with its foundation—a Christian worldview. Despite its origins in theological debates, Schaeffer’s rhetoric demonstrates the flexibility of fundamentalist argument in addressing partisan issues in American politics. Chapter Two examines fundamentalist argument in white supremacist rhetoric, specifically that of Mississippi judge, Thomas Brady. My analysis reveals how Brady uses several strategies to achieve fundamentalist objectives to preserve, protect, and restore whiteness as a foundation for American culture. In this journey to understand fundamentalist argument, the cases examined so far cohere in that they champion conservative causes. Chapter Three nuances this pattern by exploring fundamentalist argument in environmentalist discourse, specifically that of microbiologist and renowned ecologist Barry Commoner. Commoner’s particular audience—environmentalists—are tasked with defending all of humanity from self-destruction. Commoner’s rhetoric illuminates the ways in which progressives can turn to more reactionary-based arguments. In the Conclusion, I explore what this analysis reveals about fundamentalist argument as a genre of argument. Per contemporary understandings of genre theory, I appraise the cultural, situational, generic contexts that shape and are shaped by fundamentalist argument. I also discuss the strategic nature of fundamentalist argument as a compelling rhetoric to attract adherents to a cause. Lastly, my Conclusion demonstrates the relevance of fundamentalist argument to contemporary public discourse by briefly featuring fundamentalist arguments visible in our current political debates.Item Leveling the Field: The Need for Explicit Instruction of Argumentative Form for 'Struggling' Secondary Students(2009) Bado-Aleman, Jennifer; McCaleb, Joseph; Curriculum and Instruction; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)In this essay, a method for explicit teaching of argumentative form is purported, based on the methods of classical rhetoric. Throughout, it argues that the secondary student labeled "struggling" is often one who is a cultural minority and who experiences a cultural mismatch between implicit standards in argumentative writing and that of his own culture. In order to provide culturally responsive instruction for such students, the essay suggests that teachers must make these standards for what constitutes a "well-organized" explicit and teach students methods to self-regulate their thinking during the composing process. In this way, students are granted an opportunity to succeed academically in terms of writing ability.