{"id":{"repo_id":"mo-state","oai_identifier":"oai:bearworks.missouristate.edu:theses-1502"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/mo-state/oai:bearworks.missouristate.edu:theses-1502","repository":{"repo_id":"mo-state","name":"Missouri State University","base_url":"https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"An Investigation of Original Research on Argument Field Theory","abstract":"A large degree of confusion exists in the literature which surrounds argument field theory. This confusion is the result of a lack of consensus among theorists about the meaning of the term argument fields, and a lack of empirical research to examine the concept. This thesis reduces such confusion by illustrating how argument field theory may be applied in original research. A content analysis was conducted on four sermons from colonial religious rhethoric. The study found that colonial religious rhetoric as a field tends to 1) rely on authority to make arguments, and 2) make arguments using substantive type warrants. Results of the study of colonial religious rhetoric were used to draw conclusions about argument field theory in general.","abstract_html":"A large degree of confusion exists in the literature which surrounds argument field theory. This confusion is the result of a lack of consensus among theorists about the meaning of the term argument fields, and a lack of empirical research to examine the concept. This thesis reduces such confusion by illustrating how argument field theory may be applied in original research. A content analysis was conducted on four sermons from colonial religious rhethoric. The study found that colonial religious rhetoric as a field tends to 1) rely on authority to make arguments, and 2) make arguments using substantive type warrants. Results of the study of colonial religious rhetoric were used to draw conclusions about argument field theory in general.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Titsworth, B. Scott"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts in Communication","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":"Communication","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["John Sisco"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1993,"date_issued":"1993-12-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"1993-12-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:15:35Z","subjects":["Communication"],"languages":[],"rights":["© B. Scott Titsworth"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/501","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["John Sisco"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Titsworth, B. Scott"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Communication"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts in Communication"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Communication"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["© B. Scott Titsworth"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/501"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["A large degree of confusion exists in the literature which surrounds argument field theory. This confusion is the result of a lack of consensus among theorists about the meaning of the term argument fields, and a lack of empirical research to examine the concept. This thesis reduces such confusion by illustrating how argument field theory may be applied in original research. A content analysis was conducted on four sermons from colonial religious rhethoric. The study found that colonial religious rhetoric as a field tends to 1) rely on authority to make arguments, and 2) make arguments using substantive type warrants. Results of the study of colonial religious rhetoric were used to draw conclusions about argument field theory in general."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["An Investigation of Original Research on Argument Field Theory"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["John Sisco"],"dc:creator":["Titsworth, B. Scott"],"dc:description.abstract":["A large degree of confusion exists in the literature which surrounds argument field theory. This confusion is the result of a lack of consensus among theorists about the meaning of the term argument fields, and a lack of empirical research to examine the concept. This thesis reduces such confusion by illustrating how argument field theory may be applied in original research. A content analysis was conducted on four sermons from colonial religious rhethoric. The study found that colonial religious rhetoric as a field tends to 1) rely on authority to make arguments, and 2) make arguments using substantive type warrants. Results of the study of colonial religious rhetoric were used to draw conclusions about argument field theory in general."],"dc:identifier":["https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/501"],"dc:rights":["© B. Scott Titsworth"],"dc:subject":["Communication"],"dc:title":["An Investigation of Original Research on Argument Field Theory"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Communication"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts in Communication"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:15:35Z"}