The American Dialect Society

"Refutation" and "Rebuttal" Author(s): Robert W. Smith Reviewed work(s): Source: American Speech, Vol. 39, No. 2 (May, 1964), pp. 124-130 Published by: Duke University Press Stable 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 Society and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Speech.

http://www.jstor.org

"REFUTATION" AND "REBUTTAL"'

ROBERT W. SMITH Alma College
TEACHING of students in the University of Virginia's Law School, I was interested to find that when the oral advocate answered his opponent's argument the process was termed rebuttal.One was said to rebut when he weakened or destroyed his adversary'scase. This was the very meaningthat I, This promptedme a teacher of speech, had always heard appliedto refutation. to wonder if the modern speech profession did in fact have a basis for such a clear-cut dichotomy as was sometimes made between the two processes of refutation and rebuttal. Many of us had learned that refutation was tearing down the case of one's opponent and rebuttal was either building up one's own position or was perhaps a speech given towards the conclusion of a debate. Could this be another case, I pondered,like the use of extemporaneous2 in which professional teachers of speech insist there is a difand impromptu, ference, although historically there is none? I determined to find out. This article is the outgrowth of my investigation. First, let us see what selected twentieth-centuryspeech books say about the two processes. One of the most importantis Tau Kappa Alpha's semiofficial and Debate.3 handbook, Argumentation Ralph McGinnis's essay in this book two the differentiates practices, saying, "refutationis the process of clearly attacking, weakening, tearing down, or destroying the argumentof an opponent." Rebuttal "is the process of defending, strengthening, and rebuilding arguments after they have been attacked by an opponent."4True, they are complementary, but nevertheless two separate tasks. Alan Nichols, while admitting the distinction is "academic,"nonetheless contends that refutation answers only the opposingcase, while rebuttalnot only answers the opposition but also strengthens one's own case." Nichols and Baccus a generation ago made the same point: refutationis the process of answering an argumentor of disproving it by destroying the value and significance of proof. At the same time, rebuttalis refutation"plus reinforcementor re-establishingof argument

INMY

i. The substance of this article was presented as a paper at the Southern Speech Association's annual meeting at Miami, Florida, in April, I961I. I am indebted to Professors Arthur F. 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. see Fred J. 2. For an interesting study on the radical change in meaning of extemporaneous, Barton, "Signification of 'Extempore Speech' in English and American Rhetorics," Quarterly Journalof Speech,XXVII (I941), 237-51. 3. Argumentationand Debate, ed. David Porter (New York, I954). 4. Ibid., pp. I25, I26. 5. Alan Nichols, Discussionand Debate (New York, 194 x), p. 186.

"REFUTATION" AND "REBUTTAL"

25

that has been damaged by refutation and the re-statement of argumentwith additionalsupport or constructive proof."6 Thus, quickly, three books make the division. In the meantime there has been a slight twist by others, who employ the in the traditionalsense of 'weakening or destroying the case of term refutation one's adversary,' while seeing rebuttalas primarily a particular time in the debate or simply as "the second speech." Baker and Huntington,7Immel and Whipple,8 O'Neill and Cortright,9Ewbank and Auer,'oBradenand Brandenburg," and several others 12 argue along these lines. In short, it is clear that a large numberof twentieth-centuryauthorseither conceive of rebuttalas being (i) a strengtheningof one's own case, or (2) a separatespeech or a particular is 'tearing down the opponent's time in the debate. All agree that refutation position.' The ancientsdid not so construethe terms. In Greek the word which consistently is used-whether by Herotodus, '~3Plato,'4 Aristotle,'5 or Thucydides'6 -is XeyXos,, which can mean 'confute, refute, disprove, rebuke, or rebut.' In the Ars Rhetorica Cope interpretivelyexpandsthe word, calling it a refutative syllogism.'7Always, however, it has the sense of'tearing down, or meeting the opposition.' Rebut, as a verb, or rebuttal,as a noun, may be used interchangeably with refute and refutationin translation. The Greeks never difas we think of the terms. and rebuttal ferentiatedbetween refutation In Latin the evidence is even stronger. Latin writers used a variety of words to express the idea of 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, Modern Debating (New York, 1936), p. 260. 7. George P. Baker and Henry B. Huntington, Principles of Argumentation (New York, 1925), p. 390. 8. Ray K. Immel and Ruth H. Whipple, Debatingfor 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 refutationis a more general 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, 1921 i), p. 42 I;

Carl G. Miller, Argumentationand Debate (New York, 1930), p. I38; and A. Craig Baird, Public Discussionand Debate (Boston, 1928), p. 254. Baird later, however, in his Argumentation, 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 convincing

proof than of directly disproving another. i6. Peloponnesian War,III, liii. 14. Phaedrus,273c. I5. Rhetoric,III, ix. 8; xvii. 13. 17. E. M. Cope, Rhetoricof Aristotle (Cambridge, 1877), III, Io3.

126

AMERICAN SPEECH

convinco'to refute crimes by proofs,' dilvo 'to wash away,' dissolvo'to break 'to prove the opposite,' refello'to show to the force of an accusation,'redarguo 'to censureor blame, as someone's be false,' refuto'to disprove,'and reprehendo and refuto. In conduct.' The most important, however, are refello, redarguo, when he suggests strategy in court work, both refellendo Cicero's De oratore, and redarguo Conceivably, may be translatedas some form of the verb refute.'8 is used now, that is, 'to bolster may be used in the sense that rebuttal redarguo functionis still basically to weaken one's own case.' But in so doing, redarguo's the opponent. Cicero uses refellendoand redarguoin Pro Quinto Ligario (in defending Ligarius, who was on trial for treason and insubordination).19 In ad Herennium,20 the Rhetorica one of the six parts of discourse, can confutatio, be translated 'refutation.' The anonymous author writes, "Confutatio est locorumdissolutio." Here it is quite obviously the tearing down contrariorum of the argumentsof one's opponents. Quintilian, in Book VI of the Institutes,21writes of the nature of wit and humor, arguing that "refutation (refutatio) consists in denying (negando), rebutting (redarguendo),defending (defendendo)or making light of a charge, and each of these affords scope for humor."In Cicero's Tusculan Disputations,22 De oratore,23 may be translated Definibus,24 andmany other Latin sources, refello 'rebut in the sense of refutation.' Manifestly, therefore, there is no basis in Greek or Latin literature for the clear division between the two words or processes. Lest there be doubt of the meaningof rebutin English, let us clearly establish it now. Since the word is closely related to butt,we should first determinethe
18. "In short, the chief thing in a case of this kind is, if my speech can be stronger in refuting [refellendo] our opponent than in proving our own points, for me to concentrate all my shafts upon him, but if on the contrary our points can be more easily proved than his can be refuted [redarguo],to aim at drawing off their attention from our opponents' defense and directing it to our own." De oratoreII, lxxii. z93. E. W. Sutton, trans. (London, I959). See also II, ii. 9. a falsehood refute and to rebut is Tubero's task it not that Cicero conjectured argues I9. which he (Cicero) might contrive refellereet redarguonostrum medacium. . . . Pro Quinto Ligario, V, i6. N. H. Watts, trans. (London, I953). In Greek oratory, at least with Aristotle (Rhetoric, III, xiii), refutation is part of E(atseq(proof). Refutation is not a true one first gives his part of rhetoric for him, though it is, of course, for the Latins. In ttslrs those arguments of his own arguments in support of the case (confirmatio), then answers adversary by refutatio.See also Quintilian's Institutes,V, xiii. I, where we see that the duty of 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, do what they can to rebut and contradict 22. II, ii. 5. Here Cicero urges that Romans 1953). (redarquirefellique) the trend in the decline of Latin eloquence. 23. 11, ii. 9; me refellenteis the phrase used. 24. II, xxv. 8 I. Ita enim vivunt quidam ut eorum vita refellaturoratio.

"REFUTATION" AND "REBUTTAL"

127

latter's meaning. Butt comes from the Old French bote-ror buterand from the Modern French bouter,all of which have the sense of 'striking, thrusting, or shoving'-hence 'repel.' It is so used by Ormin (c. i zoo) in The Ormulum. The same meaning persists in the Lay of Havelok,the Dane (c. I30O), in Edmund Spenser's Shepheardes Calender(i 579), and in John Doran's History of Thus rebutwould be CourtFools(1858). Buttalways means 'to strike, thrust.'25 to strike, shove, thrust again.Candidly, the basic meaningof the English word rebutis that of repelling, just as in refutation. works? The first What is the evidence for rebutin pre-nineteenth-century occurrenceof rebutin Englishis in John Barbour'sBruce(c. I137 5), in which the is not found is rebut that of 'refute.' Thereafter rebuttal or meaning patently for five hundred years-in rhetorical books at least. Thomas Wilson says nothing of either rebuttal or refutation in I553, but Henry Peacham forty years later does speak of confute (in the sense of refute) in his Gardenof Eloquence.26John Ward's Systemof Oratory(i759) devotes Lecture XVII to confutation (refutation), saying, "when Oppius was chargedwith defrauding the soldiers of their provisions, Cicero refutesit, by proving, that the same persons chargedOppius with a design to corruptthe army by his liberality."27 Further, Ward states, syllogisms "may be refutedeither by shewing some mistake in the premises, or that the conclusion is not justly deduced from is of no them."28SamuelJohnson'sDictionaryof the English Language (1755) does in nor rebut the treatment of since it does not arguments, employ help, The same the ninth edition (I8O5) list rebutin the sense of 'argumentation.'29 of Rhetoric(1776).30 Though may be said for George Campbell's Philosophy John Walker's Elementsof Elocution(178 I)a' speaks of bodily action useful in affirmingor denying facts in one's own speech, he never uses refutationor nor does his compatriot,Thomas Sheridan.32 rebutal, Finally, in the eighteenth on Rhetoric and BellesLettres(I783)aa uses refute century, Hugh Blair's Lectures in the commonly acceptedway, but altogetheromits mention of rebut.Thus, in
25. For this discussion see the OED, II, x izx6, and XVI, z226. 26. Henry Peacham, Gardenof Eloquence(London, i 593). See the facsimile edition, with introduction 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, Dictionary of 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 rebut as 'to answer a surrejoinder.' 32. Thomas Sheridan, Lectureson Elocution (London, 1762). 33. Hugh Blair, Lectureson Rhetoricand Belles Lettres, II, 33. I used the 3d American ed. (Boston, 1802).

x128

AMERICAN SPEECH

the eighteenth century there is no evidence permitting our double vision of refutation-rebuttal. The nineteenth century echoes the same feeling. John Quincy Adams's Lectureson Rhetoricand Oratory (x8 xSo)34 construes refutation and rebuttal both in the sense of confutation-or so we may deduce. In the next decade James Rush's Philosophy of the Human Voice(i827)35 could not be expected to mention the words or processes, nor does it. However, in Whately's Elements of Rhetoric(1828)36 only refutationis mentioned. Nothing is said about rebuttal's being different. One quotation will explain his view of refutation: "There are two ways in which any proposition may be refuted; first, by proving the contradictory of it; secondly, by overthrowing the arguments In sum, for the importantrhetoricalworks by which it has been supported."'37 of the Renaissance through the nineteenth century, no evidence exists for treating refutationand rebuttal as differing in function. Our final area of investigation concerns American jurisprudence.This is a fruitful discipline to examine because of the argumentativenature of law and because of the hundredsof thousandsof cases in which the issue might arise. The first and most striking reality seen is that refuteis almost nonexistent Law Dictionary,38 in American juridicalvocabulary.It does not occur in Black's and Law Dictionary,39 nor in the monumentalforty-five volume Words Bouvier's and For American law the words are almost always rebutor rebuttal, Phrases.40 not refuteor refutation."4' In our hasty survey of selected American legal decisions, we shall begin a generationafter Whately. In ante bellum Georgia the state's supremecourt, in as havinga twofold significance:"it somea slaveholdingcase, definedrebutting times means contradictorytestimony only; at other times conclusive or overcoming testimony."42 Ten years later, in an Idaho case in which the possession
34. John Quincy Adams, "Lecture XXII," in Lectureson 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'sLaw Dictionary. I used the 4th ed. (St. Paul, 1951). 39. Bouvier's Law 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 show his good character ... , prosecution may in rebuttal offer as evidence his bad character .... Otherwise a defendant, secure from refutation, would have to clear a license unscrupulously to impose a false character upon the tribunal"; and Mathews v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., where Justice R. A. Stone writes: "rebuttal evidence at 162 Minn. 313 (zo202 N.W. 896 898), properly is that which explains away, contradicts, or otherwise refutes the defendant's evidence 'by any process which consists merely in diminishing or negativing the force' of it." 42. Fain v. Cornett,25 Ga. x184 at i86 (1858).

"REFUTATION" AND "REBUTTAL"

129

of illegal gold dust was at stake, Justice John Cummins of the state supreme court defined rebuttingevidenceas anything offered in direct reply to one's adversary." (Thus, though one may argue that rebuttingis not just contradicting the opponent,still the primarypurposeis to answer the opposition-hence our meaningof refutation. Rebuildingone's case is but a by-product.) Arkansas D. Wood in a 1915 decision44showed clearly Carroll Court Justice Supreme that he felt rebuttal was not building up one's own case when he stated: "Rebuttal testimony should rebut the testimony advancedby the other side, and should consist of nothing which might properly have been advanced as proof in chief."4 Here, clearly, rebuttalis refutationin the sense of 'destroying or weakening one's opposition,' and not in the sense of 'directly refurbishing one's own arguments.'46 Later decisions have perpetuatedthe earlier tradition. In 192 I Michigan's SupremeCourt Chief Justice Joseph H. Steere, writing the majority decision upholdinga murderconviction, definedrebuttalevidence as "that given by one party to contradict, repel, explain or disprove evidence producedby the other party, and tending directly to weaken or impeachthe same."47 Kentucky in the next decade embraceda minority viewpoint, at least temporarily. In I932 the state's Court of Appeals tended to broadenthe definition when in a contract case Justice Simeon B. Willis wrote, "rebuttalevidence is not confined to disputing or disproving facts testified to by the witnesses for the other side but it embracesall testimony which tends to counteractor overcome the legal effect of the evidence for the adverseparty."48This would be a v. Utterin significantcrack in the door, but really goes little furtherthan People Michigan ten years earlier.49Moreover, in 1948 the Kentucky Court of Appeals limited its definitionwhen it said that rebuttalevidence was competent "only when it is evidence in denial of some affirmativecase or fact which the
43. Peoplev. Page, I Idaho x89 at 195 (I868). See also Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255 (ro Pac. 674 at 767) (i886). 44. Bain v. Ft. Smith Light and TractionCo., i16 Ark. Izs (172 S.W. 843 at 848) (1915). See also State v. Mushrow, 32 Idaho 562 (185 Pac. io75) (1919). 45. Citing II Elliot on Evidence 947, 948. 46. 31 CorpusJuris Secundum, "Evidence," #z, speaks to the point: "rebutting evidence means not merely evidence which contradicts the witnesses on the opposite side, but also evidence in denial of some affirmative fact which the answering party has endeavored to prove." Mich. 74 (i85 830 at 833-34) (I92zi). See also the Okla47. Peoplev. Utter, N.W. ZI7 v. State, z zo Okla. Cr. 3 x5 (2 xx Pac. 429 at 431) (192z3); Alabama's homa case of Claycomb Wright v. J. A. Richards and Co., Z14 Ala. 678 (io8 So. 6Io at 6iz) (1926); Louisiana's State v. Monroe, zo5 La. 285 (17 So. znd 331x at 33z) (i944); and Michigan's People v.
De Lano, et. al, 31x8 Mich. 557 (28 N.W. znd 909 at 914) (x947). 48. Duckworth v. Routt, 242 Ky. 30 (45 S.W. znd 848 at 849) (1932).

49. See n. 47.

130

AMERICAN SPEECH

adverse party has attempted to prove, or repels or explains."'5This recalls the earlier viewpoint. Finally, in i954 Nebraska's Supreme Court met the issue head on when Justice Paul E. Boslaugh stated clearly, "rebut means to meet, to contradict,or to refute.""5 In American law, therefore, for at least one hundredyears, rebuthas meant 'refute,' and vice versa. has remainedconWhat may we conclude?First, the definitionof refutation stant for hundredsof years; it has continuedto mean to all users the repelling, contradicting,tearing down of an argument of another. It meant this to the Greeks and Romans, and still does to us today. On the other hand, for a has come to mean somesignificantportion of professionalcolleagues, rebuttal thing quite different from what earlier users meant by it: for them, it is the restructuringof one's own case (in addition to meeting the opponent), or sometimes it may be construedas a "second speech." Where, when, and why the change came about remainsto be answered.
5i. 50. Keenev. Commonwealth,307 Ky. 308 (zi o S.W. znd 926 at 9z8) (1948). Benedictv. Eppley Hotel Co., I59 Neb. Z3 (65 N.W. znd 2z4 at Z3 I) (i954).