Contemporary Argumentation Theory Research Articles

What Makes an Argument Strong?

It is widely believed that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s theory of argumentation is vulnerable to the charge of relativism. This paper provides a more charitable interpretation of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s normative views, one that properly considers the historical trajectory of their work and a wider range of texts than existing interpretations. It is argued that their views are better characterized as a form of “contrastivism about arguments” than any kind relativism. This more accurate depiction contributes to ongoing efforts to revive interest in Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s work as well as build bridges with trends in contemporary argumentation theory.

Arguing with Arguments

‘Argument’ has multiple meanings and referents in contemporary argumentation theory. Theorists are well aware of this but often fail to acknowledge it in their theories. In what follows, I distinguish several senses of ‘argument’ and argue that some highly visible theories are largely correct about some senses of the term but not others. In doing so, I hope to show that apparent theoretical rivals are better seen as collaborators or partners, rather than rivals, in the multi-disciplinary effort to understand ‘argument,’ arguments, and argumentation in all their varieties. I argue as well for a pluralistic approach to argument evaluation and argumentative norms, since arguments and argumentation can be legitimately evaluated along several dimensions, but urge that epistemic norms enjoy conceptual priority.

Correction to: Revisiting Accounts of Narrative Explanation in the Sciences: Some Clarifications from Contemporary Argumentation Theory

In the original publication of this article, the acknowledgement section has been missed to publish. Now the same has been provided in this correction.

Revisiting Accounts of Narrative Explanation in the Sciences: Some Clarifications from Contemporary Argumentation Theory

The topic of the presence, legitimacy and epistemic worth of narrative explanations in different kinds of scientific discourse has already enjoyed several revivals within related discussions in contemporary philosophy of science. In fact, we have recently witnessed a more extensive, more unprejudiced and ambitious attention to narrative modes of making science. I think we need a systematic theoretical framework in order to categorize these different functions of narratives and understand their role in scientific explanatory and justificatory practice. My claim is that some distinctions and analytic tools developed within the field of contemporary Argumentation Theory might be of help.

THE RELEVANCE CRITERION OF ARGUMENT EVALUATION: PRAGMATIC INTERPRETATION

In the paper I consider the relevance criterion for argument evaluation within informal logic. I focus on the dialectical relevance concept, which is the result of dialogical interpretation of argumentation process.The research topicality is due to the lack of the relevance notion unified understanding within the contemporary argumentation theory. This notion analysis is important because relevance is one of the criteria for argument evaluation. The elimination of its interpretation`s contradictions can be the step towards to both better practical argument evaluation using and integrative relevance understanding conception.The purpose of the article is to find out the specific features of the dialectical relevance in compare with others relevance kinds. To achieve this goal I, firstly, analyzed the key characteristics of the dialogue argumentation model in the relevance perspective. Secondly, I clarify the essential features of the dialectical relevance and irrelevance. Thirdly, I provide a comparative analysis of the dialectical and premissary relevance.The methodology of this research is based on the informal logics and dialogical approaches to an argument and argumentation analysis.The novelty of the research results is the dialectical and premissary relevance notions comparison. As the result I conclude that, firstly, dialectical relevance is merely dialectical, not logical criterion of evaluation. Secondly, dialectical relevance deals with argumentation process, not with argument as a premise-conclusion relation. Thirdly, dialectical and premissary relevance have common features, as the relation to the conclusion justifying. However, the dialectical relevance specifics are its rule`s compliance, dynamic and dialectical character, and relation to the argumentation correctness.

The ethics of arguing

ABSTRACTContemporary argumentation theory has developed an impressive array of norms, goals and virtues applicable to ideal argument. But what is the moral status of these prescriptions? Is an interlocutor who fails to live up to these norms guilty of a moral failing as well as an epistemic or cognitive error? If so, why? In answering these questions, I argue that deliberation’s epistemic and cognitive goods attach to important ethical goods, and that respect for others’ rationality, the ethics of joint action, and the importance of consensus join forces with these goods to provide strong reasons for cleaving to high standards of argument. I sketch an illustrative continuum of argument practices of different deliberative-cum-ethical standards, and consider how one should ethically respond when faced with an interlocutor employing less than ideal standards.

Makrostruktura skupštinskih debata i neka od njenih jezičkih obeležja na sintagmatsko-leksičkom nivou

The beginning of studying argumentation stems from the time of Old Greece and the development of rhetoric as discipline. Contemporary argumentation theory is based on Aristotle's rhetoric. The development of linguistics and discourse analysis has also brought new perspectives on argumentation. Today's theory looks at argumentation, arguments (as parts of it), assumptions, etc. from the position of pragma-dialectic. In the paper we present the basic characteristics of argumentation, which are supported by examples from our debate practice. We are talking about the basic concepts operated by contemporary argumentation. In this paper we also analyze some of the features of the macrostructure of the debate, the relationship between arguments and the structure of argumentation. Identified elements of argumentation, manifestations, structure, linguistic elements are also empirically substantiated through their existence in concrete discourse.

Others and Imagination in Reasoning and Argumentation: Improving our Critical Creative Capacity

Contemporary argumentation theories highlight the importance of Others for contributing to and critiquing an individual’s reasoning and/or argumentation. Reasoners and arguers are encouraged to interact with imagined constructs such as a community of model interlocutors or universal audience. These model interlocutors are theoretically meant to bring to mind reasons and counter-considerations that may not have been conceived of otherwise so as to improve the overall quality of an instance of reasoning or argumentation. Overlooked, however, is the impact of differing individual’s imaginative abilities. This paper argues that more important than relying on an Other, real or imagined, reasoners and arguers would do just as well to improve their own creative abilities first. Consulting a real or imagined Other may help in some cases help, but such a strong reliance on Others comes with serious limitations.

Teoría de la argumentación, retórica y hermenéutica: un “álbum familiar” a revisar

La argumentación que implica dar cuenta y razón de algo a alguien o ante alguien, y que en la mayoría de los casos tiene lugar en el curso de una conversación o de una interacción discursiva entre dos o más agentes -siempre y cuando se tenga la intención de convencer o persuadir a alguien por medio de razones o justificaciones- tiene mucho que ver con la hermenéutica filosófica que da preeminencia a la comprensión, el diá- logo y la interpretación, y con el enfoque retórico que hace énfasis en los procesos de inducción de creencias, acciones o actitudes del destinatario. Por lo tanto, y teniendo en cuenta los planteamientos de la teoría de la argumentación y de la hermenéutica filosófica de H.G. Gadamer, este autor se propone escribir en este artículo una aproximación a dicha problemática como si de un “álbum de familia” se tratara, por considerar que se puede encontrar en el mismo álbum “fotos” de las teorías contemporáneas de la argumentación, la nueva retórica y la hermenéutica filosófica de Gadamer.

Steps Towards an Evolutionary Account of Argumentative Competence

In this paper a tentative explanation of the competence of argumentation from an evolutionary point of view is offered. Because in contemporary argumentation theory and the informal logic approach the evolutionary perspective has been neglected, this paper gives an initial overview on the matter with the hope that core aspects of the argumentative faculty—such as argumentative normativity, the function of arguments, or fallacious moves, among others—can be seen differently afterwards. In order to specify the proposal, the main concepts considered are the notion of collective intentionality, cooperation, reputation, niche construction and, of course, basic evolutionary terms.

A theory of argumentation

This monumental work is an English translation (by Tim Personn in cooperation with Michael Weh) of the German edition that was first published in 2008. The need for this book, as the author recounts, arose as a result of work undertaken with the Hamburg Group on Argumentation Theory (p. vi). The book is intended to be a contribution to contemporary argumentation theory. Wohlrapp’s main goal in this book is to provide a philosophical foundation for a theory of argumentation, since he thinks that contemporary conceptions of argumentation fail to do justice to the importance of the practice of argumentation, and since he finds extant theories of argumentation, including pragmadialectics, neither sufficiently pragmatic nor sufficiently dialectical (p. lvii).

The Nature and Functions of Loci in Agricola’s De Inuentione Dialectica

This paper aims to single out and to highlight the fundamental tenets of Agricola’s De inuentione dialectica. After the structure of the volume, its theoretical perspective and its educational concern are illustrated, Agricola’s understanding of the fundamental notion of locus is expounded. In this relation his particular use of the medieval term habitudo and the exclusion of maxims, which had been the main concern of the Medieval doctrine of loci, show a certain distance from the Medieval tradition. Several innovative and constructive contributions of Agricola’s work are stressed, in particular the elaboration of a new taxonomy of loci and the discovery of the relevant role played by loci not only in argumentation but also in exposition and in explanation. In this way, loci acquire the status of intentiones secundae, i.e. of meta-categorical concepts which govern the connections ensuring textual congruity. A reading of this text in the light of contemporary argumentation theory reveals a surprising topicality and richness of concrete contributions in some dialectical and rhetorical domains, like argument schemes, topical potential, and presentational techniques.

Nation, Gender and Social Justice in Isabel-Clara Simó's Newspaper Columns

This article reviews the newspaper contributions by Isabel-Clara Simo, one of the most prestigious Catalan intellectuals today. Little has been discussed by critics about this part of Simo's writing and thus the primary focus of this article is to give a first overview of this production. Over the last few years opinion columns and articles have become a favorite topic for analysis in Spanish and Catalan studies. Publishing houses have also started publishing collections of newspaper articles, traditionally regarded as subordinate to fiction. The theoretical framework used is, on one hand, a contemporary argumentation theory —to examine columns as a persuasive genre— and, on the other, studies on discourse and power. Readings by Foucault and recent research on critical discourse analysis prove highly useful to understand Simo's political columns as an example of resistance discourse, which is characteristic of minority groups and ideologies and confronts the discourse of power or the social elite. It is o...

On the divorce between philosophy and argumentation theory

The author compares the views of analytic philosophy regarding argumentation and its philosophical relevance, with those of contemporary argumentation theories, in general, regarding the philosophical idea of meaning. He shows that, in the first case, the theory of meaning (Russell, Wittgenstein, Quine, and others) excludes argumentation and an approach on it, and, in the second, argumentation theories exclude, in practice, a theory of meaning, at least insofar the concept of meaning must be philosophically understood. The author concludes studying the role of each of these theories (meaning/argumentation) in Stephen Toulmin’s philosophy, where, by contrast and according to his interpretation, rhetoric and argumentation are at the core of the foundations of philosophy and of human knowledge and action as a whole.

Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse

The present article deals with reported speech as an element of argumentation in the newspaper discourse of Great Britain viewed in the unity of its syntactic and semantic characteristics and argumentative functions. Theoretically, the research is based on the dialogic understanding of quotations, the dialogue theory by Bakhtin and contemporary argumentation theory. The proposed integral approach to reported speech combining linguistics with logic and argumentation theory revealed the relations between purely linguistic (syntactic and semantic) characteristics of reported speech with its functioning in argumentative discourse of contemporary British press.

Choice is Not True or False: The Domain of Rhetorical Argumentation

Leading contemporary argumentation theories such as those of Ralph Johnson, van Eemeren and Houtlosser, and Tindale, in their attempt to address rhetoric, tend to define rhetorical argumentation with reference to (a) the rhetorical arguer’s goal (to persuade effectively), and (b) the means he employs to do so. However, a central strand in the rhetorical tradition itself, led by Aristotle, and arguably the dominant view, sees rhetorical argumentation as defined with reference to the domain of issues discussed. On that view, the domain of rhetorical argumentation is centered on choice of action in the civic sphere, and the distinctive nature of issues in this domain is considered crucial. Hence, argumentation theories such as those discussed, insofar as they do not see rhetoric as defined by its distinctive domain, apply an understanding of rhetoric that is historically inadequate. It is further suggested that theories adopting this understanding of rhetoric risk ignoring important distinctive features of argumentation about action.

Comments on ‘Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs’

In ‘‘Strategic Maneuvering in Mathematical Proofs,’’ Krabbe (2007) aims to show that argumentation theory, and specifically pragma-dialectics, can help us better understand the nature of mathematical proofs. Proofs are not always arguments, by Krabbe’s account, but he holds that ‘‘whenever in a proof the reasoning displays persuasive functions, the proof can be regarded as an argument.’’ In these cases, where proofs do have a persuasive function, their persuasive effectiveness may depend on strategic maneuvering, and this brings proofs within the scope of the recent extensions of pragma-dialectics that integrate rhetorical and dialectical principles. Agreeing with Krabbe’s overall point that proofs are often shaped by rhetorical considerations as well as dialectical ones, I wish to focus my own remarks on what an examination of proofs and proving might contribute to a broader understanding of argumentation. In contemporary argumentation theory, argumentation is assumed to have resolution of disagreement or difference of opinion as its characteristic purpose. In argumentative discourse, we drill down from disagreeing speech acts in search of contradictory source beliefs, and once the source of disagreement is identified and dispatched, argumentation typically returns to the original interactional business. The idea that argumentation is aimed at repair of disagreement is central to my own work (see my own article in this volume). The normal course of interaction is purposeful exchange of speech acts, from which an open-ended set of beliefs and intentions may be reconstructed by each participant. People search and examine these underlying beliefs and intentions when they need to in order to continue with a purposeful exchange. Whether as an expression of Gricean cooperativity (as argued by Jacobs and Jackson 1983) or as output from ‘a simple heuristic that makes us smart’ (as might be inferred from Gigerenzer et al. 1999; see also Jackson 1996),

The Value of Topoi

Despite Vancil’s (1979) proclamation over twenty years ago that topoi have been abandoned in argument theory, this essay contends that topoi should have a vital role in contemporary argumentation theory. Four key areas are identified where topoi are (or can be) essential tools for argumentation: Locating argument, building argument, development of critical thinking, and argument pedagogy. As a result, teachers and students of argument can both benefit from a (re)discovery of topoi.

Henry Johnstone, Jr.'s Still-Unacknowledged Contributions to Contemporary Argumentation Theory

Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.

Argumentation, Cooperation and Charity in Qualitative Inquiry

Contemporary argumentation theory is the most appropriate logical basis of qualitative inquiry. Formal logics, deductive or inductive, have turned out to have little value in some particular practical situations and local contexts. An optimal observance of the cooperative principle and the charity principle in argumentation theory may not only be merely methodologically motivated, it may also have an ethical motivation. This ethical motivation may have a methodological significance and may be supported by a philosophy of life.