Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent times, there have been different attempts to make an interesting use of the concept of script (as inherited from the fields of psychology and cognitive sciences) within argumentation theory. Although, in many cases, what we find under this label are computerized routines mainly used in e-learning collaborative proceses involving argumentation, either as an educational means or an educational goal, there are also other studies in which the concept of script plays a more theoretical role as the kind of commonly human cognitive structure that could account for the way in which argumentation might develop in ordinary language and ordinary settings. We aim at exploring these latter possibilities, differentiating between the global ascription of the script concept to argumentation practices as procedural and regulated actions from the somewhat more suggestive association between socially shared scripts (expected narratives, plausible sequences, customary experiences, etc.) and the way some enthymemes work from an interactive, rhetorical perspective. The concept of script could help us understand some more procedural than propositional aspects of the cognitive sets shared by arguer and audience and account for the communicative success of apparently defective argumentation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andriessen, J., Baker, M., and Suthers, D. (eds.) (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Amsterdam: Kluwer (CSCL Series).

  • Abelson, R.P. 1981. Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist 36(7): 715–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit, P.J. 1992. Characteristics of arguing from a social actor’s perspective. In Readings in argumentation, ed. W.L. Benoit, D. Hample, and P.J. Benoit, 165–183. Berlin/New York: Foris Publications. (Studies of Argumentation in Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bex, F.J., et al. (forthcoming). A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories, and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law.

  • Bicchieri, C. 2006. The grammar of society. The nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J.H., and W. Simon. 1968. Sex talk: Public and private. Etc.: A Review of General Semantics 25(2): 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagnon, J.H., and W. Simon. 1973. Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, S.C. 2007. Social relations on stage: Witnesses in classical Athens. In The attic orators, ed. E. Carawan, 140–213. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Oxford Readings in Classical Studies).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., Fischer, F., and Hesse, F. (2003). Cooperation scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the international conference on computer support for collaborative learning-CSCL 2003, eds. B. Wasson, R. Baggetun, U. Hoppe and S. Ludvigsen, 59–60. Bergen: InterMedia.

  • Oxford English Dictionary. (1971). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1986. Evidence evaluation in complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(2): 242–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington, N., and R. Hastie. 1988. Explanation-based decision making: Effects of memory structure on judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14(3): 521–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, J. 2007. Social practices and normativity. Philosophy of The Social Sciences 37(1): 46–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shank, R.C., and R.P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures. Hillsdale NJ: Earlbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary (1987). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Tindale, C. 1999. Acts of arguing. A rhetorical model of argument. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tindale, C. 2004. Rhetorical argumentation. Principles of theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vega, L. and P. Olmos. 2007. Enthymemes: the starting of a new life. In Proceedings of the sixth conference of the ISSA, eds. F.v. Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard and B. Gersen, 1411–1417. Ámsterdam: SicSat.

  • Wagenaar, W.A., van Koppen, P.J., and Crombag H.F.M. (1993 [1992]). Anchored narratives: The psychology of criminal evidence. New York: St Martin’s Press and Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993. (Originally in Dutch: Dubieuze Zaken: de Psychologie Van Strafrechtelijk Bewijs, Amsterdam: Contact, 1992).

  • Walton, D. 2001. Enthymemes, common knowledge, and plausible inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric 34(2): 93–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D. 2008. The three bases for the enthymeme: A dialogical theory. Journal of Applied Logic 6: 361–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, D., and Godden, D.M. (2007). Redefining knowledge in a way suitable for argumentation theory. In Dissensus and the search for common ground. Proceedings of OSSA, June 2007, Windsor, CD-ROM, 1–13.

  • Weinberger, A. (2003). Scripts for computer-supported collaborative learning. Effects of social and epistemic cooperation scripts on collaborative knowledge construction. Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich. (http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/archive/00001120/01/Weinberger_Armin.pdf).

  • Weinberger, A., B. Ertl, F. Fischer, and H. Mandl. 2005. Epistemic and social scripts in computer-supported collaborative learning. Instructional Science 33(1): 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberger, A., Fischer, F., and Stegman, K. (2005b). Computer-supported collaborative learning in higher education: scripts for argumentative knowledge construction in distributed groups. In Computer support for collaborative learning. Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: Learning 2005: The next 10 years! 717–726, Taipei.

  • Wikipedia (all versions) http://wikipedia.org.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula Olmos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olmos, P., Vega, L. The Use of the Script Concept in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 25, 415–426 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9212-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9212-0

Keywords

Navigation