Abstract

Argumentation instruction falls often to English teachers. Historically both logic and rhetoric have claimed to illuminate argumentation, but composition theorists lament the insufficiency of current structures and terminology for understanding argumentation. The isolation of logic from rhetoric makes it difficult for scholar-teachers to look to both disciplines for insight. The interrogative model conceived by Jaakko Hintikka, currently of Boston University, offers a theory of reasoning that relates logic to scientific, legal, ethical, and everyday reasoning. ;The interrogative model provides a powerful, theoretical foundation common to logic and rhetoric for an understanding of argumentation. The heart of the model is the claim that reasoning can be thought of as a sequence of questions and logical inferences, "interrogative moves" and "logical inference moves." Such moves are subject to the defining rules of the game of reasoning, but excellence requires attention to strategic rules. ;Hintikka's theory describes a sense of logic that goes beyond simple concern for valid inferences. It unites the creative, information-seeking part of reasoning with truth-preserving logical inference. Both are necessary, but the questioning moves are key to new discoveries. The model provides a credible, teachable account of the place of deductive logical inference and a systematic account of the indefinite depth of questioning in reasoning. Arguments are evaluated strategically according to the reliability of sources and answers to questions as well as by the correctness of logical inferences. ;The interrogative model is introduced theoretically and with practical comparisons to two theories represented in current composition pedagogy, the Toulmin model and stasis theory. The study includes discussion of argument analysis, evaluation and construction using a Sherlock Holmes story, "Silver Blaze," Susan Glaspell's "Trifles," classroom examples, and assignments