Advertisement
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, 2016-07-22 This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, 2016-07-22 This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies Frans H. Van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, 2016-07-29 This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies Frans H. van Eemeren, Robert Grootendorst, 1992 This volume gives a theoretical account of the problem of analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. After placing argumentation in a communicative perspective, and then discussing the fallacies that occur when certain rules of communication are violated, the authors offer an alternative to both the linguistically-inspired descriptive and logically-inspired normative approaches to argumentation. The authors characterize argumentation as a complex speech act in a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. The various stages of a critical discussion are outlined, and the communicative and interactional aspects of the speech acts performed in resolving a simple or complex dispute are discussed. After dealing with crucial aspects of analysis and linking the evaluation of argumentative discourse to the analysis, the authors identify the fallacies that can occur at various stages of discussion. Their general aim is to elucidate their own pragma- dialectical perspective on the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse, bringing together pragmatic insight concerning speech acts and dialectical insight concerning critical discussion. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective Frans H. van Eemeren, 2018-07-27 The book offers a compact but comprehensive introductory overview of the crucial components of argumentation theory. In presenting this overview, argumentation is consistently approached from a pragma-dialectical perspective by viewing it pragmatically as a goal-directed communicative activity and dialectically as part of a regulated critical exchange aimed at resolving a difference of opinion. As a result, the book also systematically explains how the constitutive parts of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, which are discussed in a number of separate publications, hang together. The following crucial topics are discussed: (1) argumentation theory as a discipline; (2) the meta-theoretical principles of pragma-dialectics; (3) the model of a critical discussion aimed at resolving a difference of opinion; (4) fallacies as violations of a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse; (5) descriptive research of argumentative reality; (6) analysis as theoretically-motivated reconstruction; (7) strategic manoeuvring aimed at combining achieving effectiveness with maintaining reasonableness; (8) the conventionalization of argumentative practices; (9) prototypical argumentative patterns; (10) pragma-dialectics amidst other approaches. Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective is clearly written and makes argumentation theory understandable to all scholars and advanced students interested in argumentation research. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Bert Meuffels, 2009-08-05 In Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness, Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Bert Meuffels report on their systematic empirical research of the conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. The experimental studies they carried out during more than ten years start from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation developed at the University of Amsterdam, their home university. In these studies they test methodically the intersubjective acceptability of the rules for critical discussion proposed in this theory by confronting ordinary arguers who have not received any special education in argumentation and fallacies with discussion fragments containing both fallacious and non-fallacious argumentative moves. The research covers a wide range of informal fallacies. In this way, the authors create a basis for comparing the theoretical reasonableness conception of pragma-dialectics with the norms for judging argumentative moves prevailing in argumentative practice. Fallacies and Judgments of Reasonableness provides a unique insight into the relationship between theoretical and practical conceptions of reasonableness, supported by extensive empirical material gained by means of sophisticated experimental research. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: A Systematic Theory of Argumentation Frans H. van Eemeren, Robert Grootendorst, Rob Grootendorst, 2004 In this book two of the leading figures in argumentation theory present a view of argumentation as a means of resolving differences of opinion by testing the acceptability of the disputed positions. Their model of a 'critical discussion' serves as a theoretical tool for analyzing, evaluating and producing argumentative discourse. This is a major contribution to the study of argumentation and will be of particular value to professionals and graduate students in speech communication, informal logic, rhetoric, critical thinking, linguistics, and philosophy. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Studies in Pragma-dialectics Frans Hendrik Eemeren, Robert Grootendorst, 1994 |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation Frans H. van Eemeren, A. Francisca Sn Henkemans, Rob Grootendorst, 2002-01-01 This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. In addition, the book provides a great variety of exercises and assignments to improve the students' skill in presenting argumentation. The authors begin their treatment of argumentation theory at the same juncture where argumentation also starts in practice: The difference of opinion that occasions the evolvement of the argumentation. Each chapter begins with a short summary of the essentials and ends with a number of exercises that students can use to master the material. Argumentation is the first introductory textbook of this kind. It is intended as a general introduction for students who are interested in a proper conduct of argumentative discourse. Suggestions for further reading are made for each topic and several extra assignments are added to the exercises. Special features: * A concise and complete treatment of both the theoretical backgrounds and the practice of argumentation analysis and evaluation. * Crucial concepts from pragmatics (speech act theory, Grice's cooperative principle) presented in a non-technical way; introducing the theory of verbal communication. * Unique coverage of both oral and written presentation of arguments. * Exercises and assignments based on real-life texts from a variety of contexts. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse Frans H. van Eemeren, 2010-05-19 In Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse, Frans H. van Eemeren brings together the dialectical and the rhetorical dimensions of argumentation by introducing the concept of strategic maneuvering. Strategic maneuvering refers to the arguer’s continual efforts to reconcile aiming for effectiveness with being reasonable. It takes place in all stages of argumentative discourse and manifests itself simultaneously in the choices that are made from the topical potential available at a particular stage, in adaptation to audience demand, and in the use of specific presentational devices. Strategic maneuvering derails when in the specific context in which the discourse takes place a rule for critical discussion has been violated, so that a fallacy has been committed. Van Eemeren makes clear that extending the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation by taking account of strategic maneuvering leads to a richer and more precise method for analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Handbook of Argumentation Theory Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Tjark Kruiger, 2019-11-05 No detailed description available for Handbook of Argumentation Theory. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Acts of Arguing Christopher W. Tindale, 1999-11-04 Approaches recent innovations in argumentation theory from a primarily rhetorical perspective. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation in Practice Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, 2005-09-22 Since the late 1950s the study of argumentation has developed from a marginal part of logic and rhetoric into a genuine interdisciplinary academic discipline. After having first been primarily concerned with creating an adequate philosophical perspective on argumentation, argumentation theorists have gradually shifted their focus of attention to a more immediate concern with the ins and outs of argumentative praxis. What exactly are the characteristics of situated argumentative discourse in different argumentative ‘action types’? How is the discourse influenced by institutional and contextual constraints? In what way can prominent cases of argumentative discourse be fruitfully analysed? Argumentation in Practice aims to provide insight into some important facets of argumentative praxis and the different ways in which it can be approached. The first part of this volume, ‘Conceptions of problems in argumentative practice’, introduces useful theoretical perspectives. The second part, ‘Empirical studies of argumentative practice’, contains both empirical studies of a general kind and several types of specific case studies. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse Frans Van Eemeren, 2002-06 Communications scholars from the University of Amsterdam and of Arizona analyze argumentation in ordinary disputes. They present an ideal model, and show how it works in an ideal situation, such as a dispute about the merits of two opposing cases. Then they start looking at the real world: ordinary conversation, third- party mediation, religious confrontations, cases in which at least one of the participants is not looking for resolution, and so on. Accessible to nonspecialists. Annotation copyright by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation between Doctors and Patients Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Nanon Labrie, 2021-02-15 Argumentation between Doctors and Patients discusses the use of argumentation in clinical settings. Starting from the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, it aims at providing an understanding of argumentative discourse in the context of doctor-patient interaction. It explains when and how interactions between doctors and patients can be reconstructed as argumentative, what it means for doctors and patients to reasonably resolve a difference of opinion, what it implies to strive simultaneously for reasonableness and effectiveness in clinical discourse, and when such efforts derail into fallaciousness. Argumentation between Doctors and Patients is of interest to all those who seek to improve their understanding of argumentation in a medical context – whether they are students, scholars of argumentation, or medical practitioners. Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen and Nanon Labrie are prominent argumentation theorists. In writing Argumentation between Doctors and Patients, they have benefited from the advice of an Advisory Board consisting of both medical practitioners and argumentation scholars. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Prototypical Argumentative Patterns Frans H. van Eemeren, 2017-08-14 Prototypical Argumentative Patterns reports about a research project started at the University of Amsterdam in 2012. In this project distinctive argumentative patterns have been identified in argumentative discourse in the political, the legal and the medical domain. These patterns consist of constellations of argumentative moves in which, in order to deal with a particular kind of difference of opinion, in defence of a particular type of standpoint, a particular argument scheme or combination of argument schemes is used in a particular kind of argumentation structure. The composition of these prototypical argumentative patterns can be explained by referring to the institutional characteristics of the communicative activity types in which they occur. By exploring the relationship between argumentative discourse and the institutional context, Frans van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Corina Andone, Eveline Feteris and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans have provided a new and illuminating perspective on the context-dependency of argumentative discourse. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: The New Dialectic Douglas N. Walton, 1998-01-01 Because developments in informal logic have been based, for the most part, on idealized and abstract models, the tools available for argument analysis are not easily adapted to the needs of everyday argumentation. In this book Douglas Walton proposes a new and practical approach to argument analysis based on his theory that different standards for argument must apply in the case of different types of dialogue. By refining and extending the existing formal classifications of dialogue, Walton shows that each dialogue type, be it inquiry, negotiation, or critical discussion, has its own set of goals. He goes on to demonstrate that an argument can best be evaluated in terms of its contribution, positive or negative, to the goals of the particular dialogue it is meant to further. In this way he illustrates how argument can be brought into the service of many types of dialogue, and thus has valuable uses that go well beyond the mere settling of disputes and differences. By reaching back to the Aristotelian roots of logic as an applied, practical discipline and by formulating a new framework of rationality for evaluating arguments, Douglas Walton restores a much-needed balance to argument analysis. This book complements and extends his Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory (University of Toronto Press, 1996). |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Controversy and Confrontation Frans H. van Eemeren, Frans Hendrik Eemeren, Bart Garssen, 2008 The essays that are collected in Controversy and Confrontation provide a closer insight into the relationship between controversy and confrontation that deepens our understanding of the functioning of argumentative discourse in managing differences of opinion. Their authors stem from two backgrounds. First, the controversy scholars Dascal, Marras, Euli, Regner, Ferreira, and Lessl discuss historical controversies in science, both from a theoretical and an empirical perspective; Saim concentrates on a historical controversy; Fritz provides a historical perspective on controversies by analyzing communication principles. Second the argumentation scholars Johnson, van Laar, van Eemeren, Garssen and Meuffels address theoretical or empirical aspects of argumentative confrontation; Aakhus and Vasilyeva examine argumentative discourse from the perspective of conversation analysis; Jackson analyzes argumentative confrontation in a recent debate between scientists and politicians. Last but not least, two contributors, Kutrovátz and Zemplén, make an attempt to bridge the study of historical controversy and the study of argumentation. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: A Theory of Argumentation Charles Arthur Willard, 2003-07-03 Establishes a theoretical context for, and to elaborate the implications of, the claim that argument is a form of interaction in which two or more people maintain what they construe to be incompatible positions The thesis of this book is that argument is not a kind of logic but a kind of communication—conversation based on disagreement. Claims about the epistemic and political effects of argument get their authority not from logic but from their “fit with the facts” about how communication works. A Theory of Communication thus offers a picture of communication—distilled from elements of symbolic interactionism, personal construct theory, constructivism, and Barbara O’Keefe’s provocative thinking about logics of message design. The picture of argument that emerges from this tapestry is startling, for it forces revisions in thinking about knowledge, rationality, freedom, fallacies, and the structure and content of the argumentation discipline. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: The Language of Argumentation Ronny Boogaart, Henrike Jansen, Maarten van Leeuwen, 2021-01-20 Bringing together scholars from a broad range of theoretical perspectives, The Language of Argumentation offers a unique overview of research at the crossroads of linguistics and theories of argumentation. In addition to theoretical and methodological reflections by leading scholars in their fields, the book contains studies of the relationship between language and argumentation from two different viewpoints. While some chapters take a specific argumentative move as their point of departure and investigate the ways in which it is linguistically manifested in discourse, other chapters start off from a linguistic construction, trying to determine its argumentative function and rhetorical potential. The Language of Argumentation documents the currently prominent research on stylistic aspects of argumentation and illustrates how the study of argumentation benefits from insights from linguistic models, ranging from theoretical pragmatics, politeness theory and metaphor studies to models of discourse coherence and construction grammar. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, Ralph H. Johnson, Christian Plantin, Charles A. Willard, 2013-11-05 Argumentation theory is a distinctly multidisciplinary field of inquiry. It draws its data, assumptions, and methods from disciplines as disparate as formal logic and discourse analysis, linguistics and forensic science, philosophy and psychology, political science and education, sociology and law, and rhetoric and artificial intelligence. This presents the growing group of interested scholars and students with a problem of access, since it is even for those active in the field not common to have acquired a familiarity with relevant aspects of each discipline that enters into this multidisciplinary matrix. This book offers its readers a unique comprehensive survey of the various theoretical contributions which have been made to the study of argumentation. It discusses the historical works that provide the background to the field and all major approaches and trends in contemporary research. Argument has been the subject of systematic inquiry for twenty-five hundred years. It has been graced with theories, such as formal logic or the legal theory of evidence, that have acquired a more or less settled provenance with regard to specific issues. But there has been nothing to date that qualifies as a unified general theory of argumentation, in all its richness and complexity. This being so, the argumentation theorist must have access to materials and methods that lie beyond his or her home subject. It is precisely on this account that this volume is offered to all the constituent research communities and their students. Apart from the historical sections, each chapter provides an economical introduction to the problems and methods that characterize a given part of the contemporary research program. Because the chapters are self-contained, they can be consulted in the order of a reader's interests or research requirements. But there is value in reading the work in its entirety. Jointly authored by the very people whose research has done much to define the current state of argumentation theory and to point the way toward more general and unified future treatments, this book is an impressively authoritative contribution to the field. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse Frans H. van Eemeren, 2015-08-27 This volume presents 50 contributions on the themes of reasonableness and effectiveness and their connections, which are central issues in argumentation theory. It discusses van Eemeren’s views on the study of argumentation; the approach to argumentation adopted in pragma-dialectics; pragma-dialectical perspectives on the dialectical and pragmatic dimensions of argumentative discourse; the notion of strategic maneuvering; the pragma-dialectical method of analyzing argumentative discourse; the treatment of fallacies as violations of rules for critical discussion; pragma-dialectical views on context, the role of logic, verbal indicators of argumentative moves and argument schemes; and the process of writing and rewriting argumentative texts. The pragma-dialectical quantitative approach to empirical research on argumentative discourse is illustrated by reporting on selected, illustrative experimental studies, as well as qualitative studies of historical cases. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Ad Hominem Arguments Douglas Walton, 1998 A vital contribution to legal theory and media and civic discourse In the 1860s, northern newspapers attacked Abraham Lincoln's policies by attacking his character, using the terms drunk, baboon, too slow, foolish, and dishonest. Steadily on the increase in political argumentation since then, the argumentum ad hominem, or personal attack argument, has now been carefully refined as an instrument of oppo tactics and going negative by the public relations experts who craft political campaigns at the national level. In this definitive treatment of one of the most important concepts in argumentation theory and informal logic, Douglas Walton presents a normative framework for identifying and evaluating ad hominem or personal attack arguments. Personal attack arguments have often proved to be so effective, in election campaigns, for example, that even while condemning them, politicians have not stopped using them. In the media, in the courtroom, and in everyday confrontation, ad hominem arguments are easy to put forward as accusations, are difficult to refute, and often have an extremely powerful effect on persuading an audience. Walton gives a clear method for analyzing and evaluating cases of ad hominem arguments found in everyday argumentation. His analysis classifies the ad hominem argument into five clearly defined subtypes—abusive (direct), circumstantial, bias, poisoning the well, and tu quoque (you're just as bad) arguments—and gives methods for evaluating each type. Each subtype is given a well-defined form as a recognizable type of argument. The numerous case studies show in concrete terms many practical aspects of how to use textual evidence to identify and analyze fallacies and to evaluate argumentation as fallacious or not in particular cases. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Anyone Who Has a View F.H. van Eemeren, J. Anthony Blair, Charles A. Willard, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, 2012-12-06 This volume of the Argumentation Library contains a collection of twenty-six theor etical contributions to the study of argumentation. Together they provide an over view of recent developments in the theory of argumentation which does justice to the theoretical variety in the field. InAnyone Who Has a View, the subject of argu mentation is approached from different angles. Both the formal and informal logical approaches and the rhetorical and communicative approaches arc represented in various ways. We arc convinced that the collection of essays as a whole will be of interest not only to those engaged directly in the study of argumentation, but also to scholars from a variety of disciplines who arc interested in the recent developments in this field. The book opens with an essay by the informal logician Robert C. Pinto. For all the differences between them, James B. Freeman, Harvey Siegel, Ralph H. Johnson, Hans V. Hansen, and J. Anthony Blair are also prominent members of that move ment. Some informal logicians either eschew or simply do not use formal methods in their approach to argumentation, while others, such as David Hitchcock, use both formal and informal methods. Erik C.W. Krabbe is a logician who proudly defends a formal dialectical approach to argumentation. Daniel H. Cohen, Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, Fred J. Kauffeld, C. Scott Jacobs, Christian Kock, Christian Plantin, Sorin Stati, Chris Reed, Douglas N. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Dialectic and Rhetoric F.H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, 2013-03-14 This volume discusses two distinct perspectives on the analysis of argumentative discourse: the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective. It intends to open a thorough discussion of the two approaches, their commonalities and differences, and the ways in which, in some combination or other, they can be used to further the development of sound analytic tools for dealing with argumentation. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Considering Pragma-Dialectics Peter Houtlosser, Agnes van Rees, 2014-04-04 Considering Pragma-Dialectics honors the monumental contributions of one of the foremost international figures in current argumentation scholarship: Frans van Eemeren. The volume presents the research efforts of his colleagues and addresses how their work relates to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation with which van Eemeren’s name is so intimately connected. This tribute serves to highlight the varied approaches to the study of argumentation and is destined to inspire researchers to advance scholarship in the field far into the future. Replete with contributions from highly-esteemed academics in argumentation study, chapters in this volume address such topics as: *Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments; *Pragma-dialectics and self-advocacy in physician-patient interactions; *The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem family; *Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument; and *The semantics of reasonableness. As an exceptional volume and a fitting tribute, this work will be of interest to all argumentation scholars considering the astute insights and scholarly legacy of Frans van Eemeren. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Arguments about Arguments Maurice A. Finocchiaro, 2005-07-25 This book brings together essays by one of the pre-eminent scholars of informal logic. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception Christopher W. Tindale, 2015-04-30 This book approaches the topic of argumentation from the perspective of audiences, rather than the perspective of arguers or arguments. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges Magdalena Szczyrbak, 2013-06-05 Complementing other studies on judicial discourse, this book investigates previously unexplored areas, focusing on the realisation of Concession in the genre of judgment. In addition to providing a review of approaches to concessivity as well as legal and linguistic perspectives on argumentation, the analysis draws on genre studies and follows a genre-based view of legal language. It shows the way in which the Concessive relation is deployed by last-instance courts, as revealed by an examination of EU and Polish judgments. In what constitutes a pioneering attempt to identify tripartite Concessive patterns in written data, the author breaks away from the traditional view of written legal discourse seen as static and monologic communication. Instead, she offers insights into the linguistic construction of judicial argumentation, seen as a “mute dialogue” with the addressee, highlighting recurrent argumentative schemata and related discourse signals and functions. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches, the analysis demonstrates that the dialogic model of Concession, designed as a tool for an examination of talk-in-interaction, can be successfully applied in an investigation of written data. The book is aimed at students and researchers with interests in legal discourse, genre analysis and argumentation studies. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Informal Logic Douglas Walton, 2008-06-02 Second edition of the introductory guidebook to the basic principles of constructing sound arguments and criticising bad ones. Non-technical in approach, it is based on 186 examples, which Douglas Walton, a leading authority in the field of informal logic, discusses and evaluates in clear, illustrative detail. Walton explains how errors, fallacies, and other key failures of argument occur. He shows how correct uses of argument are based on sound strategies for reasoned persuasion and critical responses. This edition takes into account many developments in the field of argumentation study that have occurred since 1989, many created by the author. Drawing on these developments, Walton includes and analyzes 36 new topical examples and also brings in work on argumentation schemes. Ideally suited for use in courses in informal logic and introduction to philosophy, this book will also be valuable to students of pragmatics, rhetoric, and speech communication. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Relevance in Argumentation Douglas Walton, 2003-10-17 In Relevance in Argumentation, author Douglas Walton presents a new method for critically evaluating arguments for relevance. This method enables a critic to judge whether a move can be said to be relevant or irrelevant, and is based on case studies of argumentation in which an argument, or part of an argument, has been criticized as irrelevant. Walton's method is based on a new theory of relevance that incorporates techniques of argumentation theory, logic, and artificial intelligence. The work uses a case-study approach with numerous examples of controversial arguments, strategies of attack in argumentation, and fallacies. Walton reviews ordinary cases of irrelevance in argumentation, and uses them as a basis to advance and develop his new theory of irrelevance and relevance. The volume also presents a clear account of the technical problems in the previous attempts to define relevance, including an analysis of formal systems of relevance logic and an explanation of the Grecian notion of conversational relevance. This volume is intended for graduate and advanced undergraduate courses in those fields using argumentation theory--especially philosophy, linguistics, cognitive science and communication studies, in addition to argumentation. The work also has practical use, as it applies theory directly to familiar examples of argumentation in daily and professional life. With a clear and comprehensive method for determining relevance and irrelevance, it can be convincingly applied to highly significant practical problems about relevance, including those in legal and political argumentation. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, 2010-11-05 No detailed description available for Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentative Indicators in Discourse Frans H. van Eemeren, Peter Houtlosser, A.F. Snoeck Henkemans, 2007-06-07 Argumentative Indicators: A Pragma-Dialectical Study identifies and analyses English words and expressions that are crucial for an adequate reconstruction of argumentative discourse. It provides the analyst of argumentative discussions and texts with a systematic set of instruments for giving a well founded analysis which results in an analytic overview of the elements that are relevant for the evaluation of the argumentation. In the book a systematic connection is made between linguistic insights into the characteristics of argumentative discourse and insights from argumentation theory into the resolution of differences of opinion by means of argumentation. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Considering Pragma-Dialectics Peter Houtlosser, Agnes van Rees, 2014-04-04 Considering Pragma-Dialectics honors the monumental contributions of one of the foremost international figures in current argumentation scholarship: Frans van Eemeren. The volume presents the research efforts of his colleagues and addresses how their work relates to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation with which van Eemeren’s name is so intimately connected. This tribute serves to highlight the varied approaches to the study of argumentation and is destined to inspire researchers to advance scholarship in the field far into the future. Replete with contributions from highly-esteemed academics in argumentation study, chapters in this volume address such topics as: *Pragma-dialectic versus epistemic theories of arguing and arguments; *Pragma-dialectics and self-advocacy in physician-patient interactions; *The pragma-dialectical analysis of the ad hominem family; *Rhetoric, dialectic, and the functions of argument; and *The semantics of reasonableness. As an exceptional volume and a fitting tribute, this work will be of interest to all argumentation scholars considering the astute insights and scholarly legacy of Frans van Eemeren. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Critical Reasoning and the Art of Argumentation M. E. S. Van den Berg, 2010-01-15 This revised edition draws on years of lecturing experience and feedback from students. The result is a popular, lively and accessible book which offers an improved and reader-friendly introduction to the art of clear thinking. Developing and applying critical reasoning skills is globally recognised as a basic competency, like reading and writing. Critical thinkers who think for themselves are the key role players in a free and democratic society. Several up-to-date and new examples from major South African socio-political events from the past few years are given, such as the Zuma trial, political conflict, race relations, and xenophobia. Other new examples are based on events that took place in the rest of Africa and the world. New exercises are drawn from newspapers, advertisements, political speeches, literary works, the Internet, and debates about xenophobic violence, crime, the death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, inequality, and health care. Numerous activities lead readers to practise critical reasoning skills. The book is valuable to students of Philosophy but also for those studying Communication Science, Development Studies, Health Care, Law, English Studies, Medical Ethics, Political Science, Psychology and Public Administration. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies Leonard Nelson, 2015-08-07 Presented as a Vorlesung in the German philosophical tradition, this book presents the most detailed account of Nelson’s method of argument analysis, celebrated by many luminaries such as Karl Popper. It was written in 1921 in opposition to the relativistic, subjectivistic and nihilistic tendencies of Nelson’s time. The book contains an exposition of a method that is a further development of Kant’s transcendental dialectics, followed by an application to the critical analysis of arguments by many famous thinkers, including Bentham, Mill, Poincaré, Leibniz, Hegel, Einstein, Bergson, Rickert, Simmel, Brentano, Stammler, Jellinek, Dingler, and Meinong. The book presents a general theory of philosophical argumentation as seen from the viewpoint of the typical fallacies committed by anybody arguing philosophically, whether professional philosophers or philosophical laypeople. Although the nature of philosophy and philosophical argumentation is one of the most recurrent objects of reflection for philosophers, this book represents the first attempt at a general theory of philosophical fallacy. According to Nelson, it is in the shape of false dilemmas that errors in reasoning always emerge, and false dilemmas are always the result of the same mechanism--the unwitting replacement of one concept for another. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Argumentation Schemes Douglas Walton, Christopher Reed, Fabrizio Macagno, 2008-08-04 This book provides a systematic analysis of many common argumentation schemes and a compendium of 96 schemes. The study of these schemes, or forms of argument that capture stereotypical patterns of human reasoning, is at the core of argumentation research. Surveying all aspects of argumentation schemes from the ground up, the book takes the reader from the elementary exposition in the first chapter to the latest state of the art in the research efforts to formalize and classify the schemes, outlined in the last chapter. It provides a systematic and comprehensive account, with notation suitable for computational applications that increasingly make use of argumentation schemes. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation Douglas N. Walton, 1992-01-01 This book provides a practical and accessible way of evaluating good and bad arguments used in everyday conversations by applying normative models of dialectical (interactive) argumentation, where two parties reason together in an orderly and cooperative way. Using case studies, the author analyzes correct and incorrect uses of argumentation on controversial issues that engage the reader's interest while illustrating points in a practical way. Walton gives clear explanations of the most common errors and tricky deceptions -- traditionally called fallacies -- that can trip up an unwary arguer. |
| argumentation communication and fallacies a pragma dialectical perspective: Scare Tactics Douglas Walton, 2014-09-01 |
Argument and Argumentation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 16, 2021 · Argumentation can be defined as the communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in order to support claims or defend/challenge positions, especially in …
ARGUMENTATION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of ARGUMENTATION is the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion. How to use argumentation in a sentence.
Home | Argumentation - Springer
Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal that gathers academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference …
Argumentation theory - Wikipedia
Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. Some key components of argumentation are: …
The Principles of Argumentation - California State University, Northridge
Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the audience at hand. Why? The …
What Does Argumentation Mean? - ThoughtCo
Argumentation is about forming reasons and influencing others with logical conclusions. Unlike persuasion, argumentation uses facts and logic, not just emotions, to prove ideas. …
Argumentation - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms - Vocabulary.com
Argumentation is a very logical way of discussing or debating an idea. When you use the technique of argumentation, you prove something to be true or false. Argumentation uses …
ARGUMENTATION | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
ARGUMENTATION definition: 1. a set of arguments used to explain something or to persuade people: 2. a set of arguments used…. Learn more.
Argument vs. Argumentation - What's the Difference? | This vs. That
Argument and argumentation are closely related concepts, but they have distinct differences. An argument is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning, while argumentation is …
What is Argumentation? – Advanced Composition
Argumentation asserts the reasonableness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion. This process teaches us how to evaluate conflicting claims and judge evidence and methods of …
Argument and Argumentation - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Jul 16, 2021 · Argumentation can be defined as the communicative activity of producing and exchanging reasons in order to support claims or defend/challenge positions, especially in …
ARGUMENTATION Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
The meaning of ARGUMENTATION is the act or process of forming reasons and of drawing conclusions and applying them to a case in discussion. How to use argumentation in a sentence.
Home | Argumentation - Springer
Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal that gathers academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference …
Argumentation theory - Wikipedia
Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. Some key components of argumentation are: …
The Principles of Argumentation - California State University, Northridge
Rather, argumentation represents a "reasoned attempt," that is, an effort based on careful thinking and planning where the appeal is to the mind, the intellect of the audience at hand. Why? The …
What Does Argumentation Mean? - ThoughtCo
Argumentation is about forming reasons and influencing others with logical conclusions. Unlike persuasion, argumentation uses facts and logic, not just emotions, to prove ideas. …
Argumentation - Definition, Meaning & Synonyms
Argumentation is a very logical way of discussing or debating an idea. When you use the technique of argumentation, you prove something to be true or false. Argumentation uses …
ARGUMENTATION | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary
ARGUMENTATION definition: 1. a set of arguments used to explain something or to persuade people: 2. a set of arguments used…. Learn more.
Argument vs. Argumentation - What's the Difference? | This vs. That
Argument and argumentation are closely related concepts, but they have distinct differences. An argument is a statement or claim supported by evidence or reasoning, while argumentation is …
What is Argumentation? – Advanced Composition
Argumentation asserts the reasonableness of a debatable position, belief, or conclusion. This process teaches us how to evaluate conflicting claims and judge evidence and methods of …
