8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

1/8

The American Dialect Society

"Refutation" and "Rebuttal"Author(s): Robert W. SmithReviewed work(s):Source: American Speech, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1964), pp. 124-130Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/453114.

Accessed: 12/01/2012 16:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The American Dialect SocietyandDuke University Pressare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toAmerican Speech.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/453114?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/453114?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

2/8

REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL 'ROBERT W. SMITH

Alma CollegeINMYTEACHING of students in the University of Virginia's Law School, Iwas interestedto findthat when the oral advocateansweredhis opponent'sargumentthe process was termed rebuttal.One was said to rebut when heweakenedor destroyedhis adversary'scase. This was the very meaningthat I,a teacherof speech,hadalways heardappliedto refutation.This promptedmeto wonder if the modernspeechprofessiondid in fact have a basis for such aclear-cut dichotomy as was sometimes made between the two processes ofrefutationand rebuttal.Many of us had learned that refutation was tearingdown the case of one's opponent and rebuttal was either building up one'sown position or was perhaps a speech given towards the conclusion of adebate.Could this be anothercase, I pondered, ike the use of extemporaneous2and impromptu,n which professionalteachers of speech insist there is a dif-ference, although historically there is none? I determined to find out. Thisarticle is the outgrowthof my investigation.

First, let us see what selectedtwentieth-centuryspeechbooks say about thetwo processes. One of the most important s Tau KappaAlpha's semiofficialhandbook,Argumentation nd Debate.3Ralph McGinnis's essay in this bookclearly differentiatesthe two practices, saying, refutationis the process ofattacking,weakening, tearingdown, or destroying the argumentof an oppo-nent. Rebuttal is the process of defending, strengthening,and rebuildingargumentsafter they have been attacked by an opponent. 4True, they arecomplementary,but nevertheless two separate tasks. Alan Nichols, whileadmittingthe distinction is academic, nonetheless contends that refutationanswersonly the opposingcase, while rebuttalnot only answers the oppositionbut also strengthensone's own case. Nichols and Baccus a generation agomade the samepoint: refutation s the process of answeringan argumentor ofdisprovingit by destroying the value and significanceof proof. At the sametime, rebuttal s refutation plusreinforcementor re-establishingof argument

i. The substance of this article was presented as a paper at the Southern Speech Associa-tion's annualmeeting at Miami, Florida, in April, I961I. I am indebted to Professors ArthurF. Stocker, of the Department of Classics, University of Virginia, and W. Paul Gormley,of the School of Law, University of South Dakota, for helpful suggestions.

2. For an interesting study on the radical change in meaning of extemporaneous,ee Fred J.Barton, Signification of 'Extempore Speech' in English and American Rhetorics, QuarterlyJournalof Speech,XXVII (I941), 237-51.3. Argumentationand Debate,ed. David Porter (New York, I954).4. Ibid., pp. I25, I26.

5. Alan Nichols, Discussion and Debate (New York, 194x), p. 186.

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

3/8

REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL I 25that has been damagedby refutationand the re-statement of argumentwithadditionalsupportor constructiveproof. 6Thus, quickly, three books makethe division.

In the meantime there has been a slight twist by others, who employ theterm refutationn the traditionalsense of 'weakeningor destroyingthe case ofone's adversary,'while seeing rebuttalas primarily a particulartime in thedebate or simply as the second speech. BakerandHuntington,7Immel andWhipple,8 O'Neill and Cortright,9Ewbank andAuer,'oBradenand Branden-burg, and several others 12 argue along these lines. In short, it is clear that alargenumberof twentieth-centuryauthorseither conceive of rebuttalas being(i) a strengtheningof one's own case, or (2) a separatespeechor a particulartime in the debate. All agree that refutations 'tearingdown the opponent'sposition.'The ancientsdidnot so construethe terms. In Greek the word which consis-tently is used-whether by Herotodus, '~3Plato,'4Aristotle,'5or Thucydides'6-is XeyXos,,which can mean 'confute, refute, disprove,rebuke,or rebut.'In the Ars RhetoricaCope interpretively expandsthe word, calling it a refuta-tive syllogism.'7Always, however, it hasthe senseof'tearing down, ormeetingthe opposition.' Rebut,as a verb, or rebuttal,as a noun, may be used inter-changeablywith refuteand refutationn translation.The Greeks never dif-ferentiatedbetweenrefutationndrebuttal swe thinkof the terms.In Latinthe evidenceis even stronger.Latinwriters useda variety of wordsto expressthe ideaof disproving,refuting,or breakingthe force of accusation:amolior to put away, as in argument,'confuto to put down by arguments,'

6. Egbert R. Nichols and Joseph H. Baccus, ModernDebating (New York, 1936), p. 260.7. George P. Baker and Henry B. Huntington, Principlesof Argumentation(New York,

1925), p. 390.8. Ray K. Immel and Ruth H. Whipple, Debating or High Schools(Boston, 1929), p. 127.9. James M. O'Neill and Rupert L. Cortright, Debate and Oral Discussion (rev. ed.;New York, 193I), pp. 183-84. They make the interesting assertion that refutations a moregeneral term than rebuttal.Usually the reverse is maintained.Io. Henry L. Ewbank and J. Jeffery Auer, Discussion and Debate (2d ed.; New York,

1951), P. 442.i i. Waldo W. Braden and Ernest Brandenburg,Oral Decision-Making(New York, 1955),P. 449.12. See Arthur K. Kruger, Modern Debate (New York, I960), p. I3; James M. O'Neill,Craven Laycock, and Robert Scales, Argumentation and Debate (New York, 1921i), p. 42 I;

Carl G. Miller, Argumentationand Debate (New York, 1930), p. I38; and A. Craig Baird,PublicDiscussionand Debate (Boston, 1928), p. 254. Baird later, however, in his Argumenta-tion, Discussion and Debate (New York, 1950), saw the two terms as interchangeable,having equivalent meanings (p. 325).

I13. History, II, z z, i 15; in II, z 2, however, it is employed more in the sense of convincingproof than of directly disproving another.14. Phaedrus,273c. I5. Rhetoric,III, ix. 8; xvii. 13. i6. PeloponnesianWar,III, liii.17. E. M. Cope, Rhetoricof Aristotle (Cambridge, 1877), III, Io3.

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

4/8

126 AMERICAN SPEECHconvincoto refute crimes by proofs,' dilvo 'to wash away,' dissolvo to breakthe force of an accusation,'redarguoto prove the opposite,' refello to show tobe false,' refuto to disprove,'andreprehendoto censureor blame,as someone'sconduct.' The most important,however, are refello,redarguo, nd refuto.InCicero's De oratore,when he suggests strategy in court work, both refellendoandredarguomay be translatedas some form of the verb refute.'8Conceivably,redarguomay be used in the sense that rebuttals used now, that is, 'to bolsterone's own case.' But in so doing, redarguo'sunction s still basicallyto weakenthe opponent. Cicero uses refellendoand redarguon Pro QuintoLigario (indefending Ligarius, who was on trial for treason and insubordination).19 Inthe Rhetorica d Herennium,20onfutatio, ne of the six parts of discourse, canbe translated 'refutation.' The anonymous author writes, Confutatio estcontrariorumocorumdissolutio. Here it is quite obviously the tearingdownof the argumentsof one's opponents.Quintilian, in Book VI of the Institutes,21writes of the nature of wit andhumor, arguing that refutation (refutatio) consists in denying (negando),rebutting(redarguendo),defending(defendendo)or making light of a charge,and each of these affordsscope for humor. In Cicero's TusculanDisputations,22De oratore,23 efinibus,24 andmanyotherLatinsources,refellomay be translated'rebut in the sense of refutation.'Manifestly, therefore, there is no basis inGreek or Latin literature for the clear division between the two words orprocesses.Lest there be doubt of the meaningof rebut n English,let us clearly establishit now. Since the word is closely relatedto butt,we shouldfirst determinethe

18. In short, the chief thing in a case of this kind is, if my speech can be stronger inrefuting [refellendo]our opponent than in proving our own points, for me to concentrateall my shafts upon him, but if on the contrary our points can be more easily proved than hiscan be refuted [redarguo], o aim at drawing off their attention from our opponents' defenseand directing it to our own. De oratore I, lxxii. z93. E. W. Sutton, trans. (London, I959).See also II, ii. 9.

I9. Cicero argues that it is not Tubero's task to rebut and refute a conjectured falsehoodwhich he (Cicero) might contrive refellereet redarguonostrummedacium. . . . Pro QuintoLigario, V, i6. N. H. Watts, trans. (London, I953). In Greek oratory, at least withAristotle (Rhetoric,III, xiii), refutation is part of E(atseq proof). Refutation is not a truepart of rhetoric for him, though it is, of course, for the Latins. In ttslrs one first gives hisown arguments in support of the case (confirmatio),then answers those arguments of hisadversary by refutatio.See also Quintilian's Institutes, V, xiii. I, where we see that the dutyof the defense advocate consists wholly of refutatione.

20. I, iii. 4. Harry Caplan, trans. (London, I954)*21. VI, iii. 72. H. E. Butler, trans. (London, 1953).22. II, ii. 5. Here Cicero urges that Romans do what they can to rebut and contradict

(redarqui refellique)the trend in the decline of Latin eloquence.23. 11, ii. 9; me refellente s the phrase used.24. II, xxv. 8I. Ita enim vivunt quidamut eorumvita refellaturoratio.

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

5/8

REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL 127latter'smeaning.Butt comes from the Old Frenchbote-ror buterand from theModern French bouter,all of which have the sense of 'striking, thrusting,orshoving'-hence 'repel.' It is so used by Ormin (c. izoo) in The Ormulum.The same meaning persists in the Lay of Havelok,the Dane (c. I30O), in Ed-mundSpenser'sShepheardes alender(i 579), and in John Doran's History ofCourtFools(1858). Buttalways means 'to strike, thrust.'25 hus rebutwould beto strike, shove, thrustagain.Candidly,the basicmeaningof the Englishwordrebut s that of repelling, just as in refutation.What is the evidence for rebut n pre-nineteenth-centuryworks? The firstoccurrenceof rebutn English s inJohnBarbour'sBruce c. I137), in which themeaningis patently that of 'refute.' Thereafter rebuttal or rebut is not foundfor five hundredyears-in rhetorical books at least. Thomas Wilson saysnothing of either rebuttal or refutation in I553, but Henry Peacham fortyyears later does speak of confute (in the sense of refute) in his GardenofEloquence.26John Ward's Systemof Oratory i759) devotes Lecture XVII toconfutation(refutation), saying, when Oppius was chargedwith defraudingthe soldiers of their provisions, Cicero refutes t, by proving, that the samepersons chargedOppiuswith a designto corrupt he army by his liberality. 27Further, Ward states, syllogisms may be refutedeither by shewing somemistake in the premises, or that the conclusion is not justly deduced fromthem. 28SamuelJohnson'sDictionaryof theEnglish Language(1755) is of nohelp, since it does not employ rebut n the treatment of arguments,nor doesthe ninthedition (I8O5) list rebut n the sense of 'argumentation.'29he samemay be said for George Campbell's Philosophy f Rhetoric(1776).30 ThoughJohn Walker's Elementsof Elocution 178I)a' speaks of bodily action useful inaffirmingor denying facts in one's own speech, he never uses refutationorrebutal,nor does his compatriot,Thomas Sheridan.32inally, in the eighteenthcentury,Hugh Blair'sLectures nRhetoric ndBellesLettres(I783)aa uses refutein the commonly acceptedway, butaltogetheromits mention of rebut.Thus, in

25. For this discussion see the OED, II, xzx6, and XVI, z226.26. Henry Peacham, Gardenof Eloquence(London, i593). See the facsimile edition, withintroduction by William G. Crane (Gainesville, Fla., 1954), p. 0o3.27. John Ward, System of Oratory (London, i759), I, z256.Italics are mine.28. Ibid., I, 258-59. Italics are mine.29. Samuel Johnson, Dictionaryof the English Language (9th ed.; London, i80o5).30. George Campbell, Philosophyof Rhetoric(London, I776), 2 vols.3 . John Walker, Elementsof Elocution;I used the 7th ed. (London, 1825). In his Critical

PronouncingDictionary (New York, 1823), however, Walker defines rebutas 'to answer asurrejoinder.'32. Thomas Sheridan, Lectureson Elocution(London, 1762).33. Hugh Blair, Lectureson Rhetoricand BellesLettres, II, 33. I used the 3d American ed.

(Boston, 1802).

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

6/8

x128 AMERICAN SPEECHthe eighteenth century there is no evidence permitting our double vision ofrefutation-rebuttal.The nineteenth century echoes the same feeling. John Quincy Adams'sLectureson Rhetoricand Oratory(x8 So)34construes refutation and rebuttalboth in the sense of confutation-or so we may deduce. In the next decadeJamesRush'sPhilosophy f theHuman Voice(i827)35 couldnot be expected tomentionthe words or processes,nor does it. However, in Whately's Elementsof Rhetoric 1828)36 only refutation s mentioned.Nothing is said about rebut-tal's being different. One quotation will explain his view of refutation:There are two ways in which any proposition may be refuted; first, byproving the contradictory of it; secondly, by overthrowing the argumentsby which it has been supported. '37n sum, for the importantrhetoricalworksof the Renaissance through the nineteenth century, no evidence exists fortreatingrefutationandrebuttalas differingin function.Our final area of investigationconcernsAmerican jurisprudence.This is afruitfuldisciplineto examinebecause of the argumentativenatureof law andbecause of the hundredsof thousandsof cases in which the issue might arise.The first andmost striking reality seen is that refute s almost nonexistentin Americanjuridicalvocabulary.It does not occurin Black'sLaw Dictionary,38Bouvier'sLaw Dictionary,39or in the monumental orty-fivevolume Words ndPhrases.40or Americanlaw the words are almost always rebutor rebuttal, ndnot refuteor refutation. 4'In our hasty survey of selected American legal decisions, we shall begin agenerationafterWhately. In ante bellumGeorgiathe state's supremecourt, ina slaveholdingcase,definedrebutting s havinga twofold significance: it some-times means contradictory estimony only; at other times conclusive or over-comingtestimony. 42Ten years later, in an Idaho case in which the possession

34. John Quincy Adams, Lecture XXII, in Lectures n Rhetoricand Oratory(Cambridge,Mass., I81io), II, 71.35. James Rush, Philosophy of the Human Voice. I used the zd ed. (Philadelphia, I827).36. Richard Whately, Elementsof Rhetoric.I used the I844 ed. (Boston).37. Ibid.,p. 94.38. Black's Law Dictionary.I used the 4th ed. (St. Paul, 1951).39. Bouvier'sLaw Dictionary (Cleveland, 1940).40. Wordsand Phrases,1658 to Date (St. Paul, 1940 to date).41. Two exceptions are Wigmore on Evidence (3d ed.; Boston, 1940), I, #58, where

John H. Wigmore states that in a criminal case, after the defendant has attempted to showhis good character ... , prosecution may in rebuttal offer as evidence his bad character ....Otherwise a defendant, secure from refutation, would have to clear a license unscrupulouslyto impose a false character upon the tribunal ; and Mathews v. Chicago&N.W. Ry. Co.,162 Minn. 313 (zo202N.W. 896 at 898), where Justice R. A. Stone writes: rebuttal evidenceproperly is that which explains away, contradicts, or otherwise refutes the defendant'sevidence 'by any process which consists merely in diminishing or negativing the force' of it.42. Fain v. Cornett,25 Ga. x184at i86 (1858).

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

7/8

REFUTATION AND REBUTTAL 129of illegal gold dust was at stake, JusticeJohn Cumminsof the state supremecourt defined rebuttingevidenceas anything offered in direct reply to one'sadversary. (Thus, thoughone may arguethatrebutting s not justcontradict-ing theopponent,still the primarypurposeis to answer the opposition-henceourmeaningof refutation.Rebuildingone's case is buta by-product.)ArkansasSupremeCourt Justice Carroll D. Wood in a 1915 decision44 howed clearlythat he felt rebuttal was not building up one's own case when he stated:Rebuttaltestimony should rebut the testimony advancedby the other side,and should consist of nothing which might properly have been advancedasproofin chief. 4 Here, clearly,rebuttal s refutation n the sense of 'destroyingor weakeningone's opposition,'and not in the sense of 'directly refurbishingone's own arguments.'46Later decisions have perpetuated he earlier tradition. In 192 I Michigan'sSupremeCourt Chief JusticeJoseph H. Steere, writing the majoritydecisionupholdinga murderconviction,defined rebuttalevidence as thatgiven by oneparty to contradict,repel, explainor disproveevidenceproducedby the otherparty, and tending directly to weaken or impeachthe same. 47

Kentucky in the next decade embraceda minority viewpoint, at least tem-porarily. In I932 the state's Court of Appealstendedto broaden he definitionwhen in a contract case JusticeSimeonB. Willis wrote, rebuttalevidence isnot confined to disputingor disprovingfacts testified to by the witnesses forthe other side but it embracesall testimonywhich tends to counteractor over-come the legal effect of the evidencefor the adverseparty. 48This would be asignificantcrack in the door, butreally goes little further hanPeople . Utter nMichigan ten years earlier.49Moreover, in 1948 the Kentucky Court ofAppealslimited its definitionwhen it said thatrebuttalevidence was competent

only when it is evidence in denialof some affirmativecase or fact which the43. Peoplev. Page, I Idaho x89 at 195 (I868). See also Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 (roPac. 674 at 767) (i886).44. Bain v. Ft. Smith Light and TractionCo., i16 Ark. Izs (172 S.W. 843 at 848) (1915).See also Statev. Mushrow, 32 Idaho 562 (185 Pac. io75) (1919).45. Citing II Elliot on Evidence947, 948.46. 31 CorpusJuris Secundum, Evidence, #z, speaks to the point: rebutting evidencemeans not merely evidence which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side, but alsoevidence in denial of some affirmative fact which the answering party has endeavored to

prove.47. Peoplev. Utter, ZI7 Mich. 74 (i85 N.W. 830 at 833-34) (I92z ). See also the Okla-homa case of Claycombv. State, z zo Okla. Cr. 3x5 (2 xx Pac. 429 at 431) (192z3); Alabama'sWright v. J. A. Richardsand Co., Z14 Ala. 678 (io8 So. 6Io at 6iz) (1926); Louisiana'sStatev. Monroe, zo5 La. 285 (17 So. znd 331x at 33z) (i944); and Michigan's People v.De Lano, et. al, 31x8Mich. 557 (28 N.W. znd 909 at 914) (x947).48. Duckworthv. Routt, 242 Ky. 30 (45 S.W. znd 848 at 849) (1932).49. See n. 47.

8/22/2019 Refutation %26 Rebuttal

8/8

130 AMERICAN SPEECHadverse party has attemptedto prove, or repels or explains. '5This recallsthe earlier viewpoint. Finally, in i954 Nebraska's SupremeCourt met theissue head on when Justice Paul E. Boslaughstated clearly, rebut means tomeet, to contradict,or to refute. 5In Americanlaw, therefore,for at least one hundredyears, rebuthas meant'refute,' and vice versa.

What may we conclude?First, the definitionof refutation as remainedcon-stantfor hundredsof years; it has continuedto meanto all users the repelling,contradicting,tearing down of an argumentof another. It meant this to theGreeks and Romans, and still does to us today. On the other hand, for asignificantportionof professionalcolleagues, rebuttal as come to mean some-thing quite different from what earlier users meant by it: for them, it is therestructuringof one's own case (in addition to meeting the opponent), orsometimesit may be construedas a secondspeech. Where, when, andwhythe changecame aboutremains to be answered.

50. Keenev. Commonwealth,307 Ky. 308 (zi o S.W. znd 926 at 9z8) (1948).5i. Benedictv. Eppley Hotel Co., I59 Neb. Z3 (65 N.W. znd 2z4 at Z3I) (i954).