Current issues being addressed by argumentation theorists can be identified by examining their writings in The Journal of the American Forensic Association (JAFA). Traditionally, argument has been seen as an utterance or act, from a philosophy based logical "product" perspective. Many current theorists, however, see argument as a process or communication transaction, and it is this perspective that is most useful for the speech communication teacher. The modern theorists' acceptance that argument is not logic leads to disputes concerning the nature of the standards to be applied in evaluating arguments. For the teacher, procedural standards provide the best assurance of validity. The role of nonverbal communication is also a growing concern of current theorists. A survey of seven recent undergraduate texts--by H. Kahane, K. Lambert and E. Ulrich, J. V. Jensen, A. M. Eisenberg and J. A. Ilardo, A. Freeley, J. E. Sayer, and J. M. Sproule--reveals that only the last three depart from traditional views and define argument as a process or procedure. Of these three, only Sproule's "Argument: Language and Its Influence" retains that perspective in discussing argumentative validity. His is the first choice, and Sayer's the second, for a teacher desiring to put argumentation more fully into a transactional perspective. (JL)