47 found

Year:

Forthcoming articles
  1.  13
    Andrew Aberdein (forthcoming). Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. Argumentation:1-7.
  2. Moti Mizrahi (forthcoming). Why Simpler Arguments Are Better. Argumentation:1-15.
    In this paper, I argue that, other things being equal, simpler arguments are better. In other words, I argue that, other things being equal, it is rational to prefer simpler arguments over less simple ones. I sketch three arguments in support of this claim: an argument from mathematical proofs, an argument from scientific theories, and an argument from the conjunction rule.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  2
    Christian Dahlman (forthcoming). Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence. Argumentation:1-17.
    Arguments on legal evidence rely on generalizations, that link a certain circumstance to a certain hypothesis and warrants the claim that the circumstance makes the hypothesis more probable. Some generalizations are acceptable and others are unacceptable. A generalization can be unacceptable on at least four different grounds. A false generalization is unacceptable because membership in the reference class does not increase the probability of the hypothesis. A non-robust generalization is unacceptable because it uses a reference class that is too heterogeneous. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  14
    David Hitchcock (forthcoming). Harald R. Wohlrapp: The Concept of Argument: A Philosophical Foundation. Logic, Argumentation and Reasoning 4. Argumentation:1-11.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  11
    Michael H. G. Hoffmann (forthcoming). Reflective Argumentation: A Cognitive Function of Arguing. Argumentation:1-33.
    Why do we formulate arguments? Usually, things such as persuading opponents, finding consensus, and justifying knowledge are listed as functions of arguments. But arguments can also be used to stimulate reflection on one’s own reasoning. Since this cognitive function of arguments should be important to improve the quality of people’s arguments and reasoning, for learning processes, for coping with “wicked problems,” and for the resolution of conflicts, it deserves to be studied in its own right. This contribution develops first steps (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  9
    Vahram Atayan (forthcoming). Generi testuali argomentativi e traduzione in prospettiva storica: qualche osservazione sulla base delle informazioni fornite dalla Saarbrucker Ûbersetzungsbibliographie a proposito delle traduzioni dal francese, dall'italiano e dallo spagnolo in tedesco. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  6
    Christina Becker (forthcoming). Dinamizar, impulsar-élargissement, approfondissement: Zum Zusammenhang zwischen konzeptuellen Metaphern und Argumentation am Beispiel politischer Sprachverwendung in Spanien und Frankreich. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  3
    Daniel Beresheim (forthcoming). Christopher W. Tindale: The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception. Argumentation:1-4.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  6
    David Botting (forthcoming). Johnson and the Soundness Doctrine. Argumentation:1-25.
    Why informal logic? Informal logic is a group of proposals meant to contrast with, replace, and reject formal logic, at least for the analysis and evaluation of everyday arguments. Why reject formal logic? Formal logic is criticized and claimed to be inadequate because of its commitment to the soundness doctrine. In this paper I will examine and try to respond to some of these criticisms. It is not my aim to examine every argument ever given against formal logic; I am (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  8
    Ana Lûcia Tinoco Cabrai (forthcoming). L'emploi de Portante (Donc) Dans des Textes Écrits En Portugais du Brésil Ana Lûcia Tinoco Cabrai (Sâo Paulo). Argumentation.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  8
    Marion Carel (forthcoming). L'ambivalence argumentative: sous-détermination des énoncés par les phrases. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  4
    Ioana A. Cionea, Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub (forthcoming). Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model. Argumentation:1-43.
    This manuscript examines argument engagement in close relationships. Two pilot studies were conducted to identify what factors naïve actors report matter to them when considering whether to engage in an interpersonal argument, and to develop and pre-test measurement scales for these factors. The main study examined which of these factors predicted participants’ behavioral intent to engage in an argument about different topics and with different partners. Results indicated intent to engage was predicted by five factors: one’s orientation to the topic, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  6
    Sivan Cohen-Wiesenfeld (forthcoming). Argumentation logique et subjectivité masquée: le cas de la note diplomatique. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  5
    Stephen M. Croucher, Alfred DeMaris, Audra R. Diers-Lawson & Shannon Roper (forthcoming). Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination. Argumentation:1-21.
    This study has two purposes. First, the study evaluates the reliability of self-reports of argumentativeness by comparing self-reported argumentativeness with two other reports of the same target: evaluations by friends and evaluations by intimates. Second, the study examines whether particular characteristics presage a larger or smaller disparity in different reporters’ reports. We found the reliability of both the approach and avoidance subscales to be acceptable for the intimate partner’s responses, but only marginally acceptable when the scale was answered by a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15.  15
    Giovanni Damele (forthcoming). Rhetoric and Persuasive Strategies in High Courts' Decisions: Some Remarks on the Recent Decisions of the Portuguese Tribunal Constitutional and the Italian Corte Costituzionale on Same-Sex Marriage. Argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  11
    Xavier de Donato Rodríguez & Jesús Zamora Bonilla (forthcoming). Scientific Controversies and the Ethics of Arguing and Belief in the Face of Rational Disagreement. Argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  9
    Benjamin De Mesel (forthcoming). How Morality Can Be Absent From Moral Arguments. Argumentation:1-21.
    What is a moral argument? A straightforward answer is that a moral argument is an argument dealing with moral issues, such as the permissibility of killing in certain circumstances. I call this the thin sense of ‘moral argument’. Arguments that we find in normative and applied ethics are almost invariably moral in this sense. However, they often fail to be moral in other respects. In this article, I discuss four ways in which morality can be absent from moral arguments in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. F. H. Van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (forthcoming). Argumentation, Interpretation, Rhetoric. Argumentation.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Emily Friedrich (forthcoming). The Toulmin Brief. Argumentation.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  4
    Anca Gâjà (forthcoming). La dissociation argumentative: composantes, mise en discours et ajustement stratégique. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  6
    Roderic A. Girle (forthcoming). Proof and Dialogue in Aristotle. Argumentation:1-28.
    Jan Łukasiewicz’s analysis of Aristotle’s syllogism drew attention to the nature of syllogisms as conditionals rather than premise-conclusion arguments. His further idea that syllogisms should be understood as theorems of an axiom system seems a step too far for many logicians. But there is evidence to suggest that Aristotle’s syllogism was to regularise some of the steps made in ‘dialogue games.’ This way of seeing the syllogism is explored in the framework of modern formal dialogue systems. A modern formal syllogistic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  4
    Sara Greco (forthcoming). F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen : Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation:1-8.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  10
    Lukáš Hlouch (forthcoming). Models of Legal Reasoning: An Attempt of a Practical View. Argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  4
    Xingming Hu (forthcoming). Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience? Argumentation:1-13.
    Peter van Inwagen defines a successful argument in philosophy as one that can be used to convert an audience of ideal agnostics in an ideal debate. Sarah McGrath and Thomas Kelly recently argue that van Inwagen’s definition cannot be correct since the idea of ideal agnostics is incoherent with regard to an absolute paradigm of a successful philosophical argument. This paper defends van Inwagen’s definition against McGrath and Kelly’s objection.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  3
    Mathilde Janier & Chris Reed (forthcoming). Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse. Argumentation:1-38.
    Mediation is an alternative dispute resolution process that is becoming more and more popular particularly in English-speaking countries. In contrast to traditional litigation it has not benefited from technological advances and little research has been carried out to make this increasingly widespread practice more efficient. The study of argumentation in dispute mediation hitherto has largely been concerned with theoretical insights. The development of argumentation theories linked to computational applications opens promising new horizons since computational tools could support mediators, making sessions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  6
    Erik C. W. Krabbe (forthcoming). Else Barth. Argumentation:1-3.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  2
    Erik C. W. Krabbe (forthcoming). The Formalization of Critical Discussion. Argumentation:1-19.
    This paper makes an independent start with formalizing the rules for the argumentation stage of critical discussions. It does not deal with the well-known code of conduct consisting of ten rules but with the system consisting of fifteen rules on which the code of conduct is based. The rules of this system are scrutinized and problems they raise are discussed. Then a formal dialectical system is defined that reflects most of the contents of these rules. The aim is to elucidate (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  7
    Thorn-R. Kray (forthcoming). On Name-Dropping: The Mechanisms Behind a Notorious Practice in Social Science and the Humanities. Argumentation:1-19.
    The present essay discusses a notorious rhetoric means familiar to all scholars in the social sciences and humanities including philosophy: name-dropping. Defined as the excessive over-use of authoritative names, I argue that it is a pernicious practice leading to collective disorientation in spoken discourse. First, I discuss name-dropping in terms of informal logic as an ad verecundiam-type fallacy. Insofar this perspective proves to lack contextual sensitivity, name-dropping is portrayed in Goffman’s terms as a more general social practice. By narrowing down (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Martin Kusch & H. Schroder (forthcoming). Text, Interpretation. Argumentation.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  3
    Fernando Leal (forthcoming). Review Of: Frans H. Van Eemeren : Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics, Cham , Springer , 880 Pp. [REVIEW] Argumentation:1-6.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  11
    Fabrizio Macagno & Alessandro Capone (forthcoming). Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentation:1-24.
    The problem of establishing the best interpretation of a speech act is of fundamental importance in argumentation and communication in general. A party in a dialogue can interpret another’s or his own speech acts in the most convenient ways to achieve his dialogical goals. In defamation law this phenomenon becomes particularly important, as the dialogical effects of a communicative move may result in legal consequences. The purpose of this paper is to combine the instruments provided by argumentation theory with the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32.  7
    Dima Mohammed (forthcoming). Goals in Argumentation: A Proposal for the Analysis and Evaluation of Public Political Arguments. Argumentation:1-25.
    In this paper, I review and compare major literature on goals in argumentation scholarship, aiming to answer the question of how to take the different goals of arguers into account when analysing and evaluating public political arguments. On the basis of the review, I suggest to differentiate between the different goals along two important distinctions: first, distinguish between goals which are intrinsic to argumentation and goals which are extrinsic to it and second distinguish between goals of the act of arguing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  1
    Rudi Palmieri & Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati (forthcoming). Multiple Audiences as Text Stakeholders: A Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Complex Rhetorical Situations. Argumentation:1-33.
    In public communication contexts, such as when a company announces the proposal for an important organizational change, argumentation typically involves multiple audiences, rather than a single and homogenous group, let alone an individual interlocutor. In such cases, an exhaustive and precise characterization of the audience structure is crucial both for the arguer, who needs to design an effective argumentative strategy, and for the external analyst, who aims at reconstructing such a strategic discourse. While the peculiar relevance of multiple audience is (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  3
    Christian Plantin (forthcoming). Laissez dire: La norme du discours de l'un est dans le discours de l'autre Christian Plantin (Lyon). Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35.  4
    Anika Schiemann (forthcoming). Adverbial indizierte Implikationen: eine argumentationsbasierte Analyse von persinolperfino. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36.  6
    Laura Sergo (forthcoming). La funzione argomentativa del connettore infatti in testi scientifici e divulgativi. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37.  1
    Michael Shenefelt & Heidi White (forthcoming). Comment on Roderic A. Girle’s “Proof and Dialogue in Aristotle”. Argumentation:1-2.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  3
    Justine Simon (forthcoming). Stratégies de Négociation Politique Et de Représentation du Discours d'Autrui Dans la Presse Adressée aux Jeunes. Argumentation.
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39.  7
    Takeshi Suzuki (forthcoming). The 3rd Tokyo Conference on Argumentation. Argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  40.  8
    Vladimír Svoboda & Jaroslav Peregrin (forthcoming). Logically Incorrect Arguments. Argumentation:1-25.
    What do we learn when we find out that an argument is logically incorrect? If logically incorrect means the same as not logically correct, which in turn means not having a valid logical form, it seems that we do not learn anything too useful—an argument which is logically incorrect can still be conclusive. Thus, it seems that it makes sense to fix a stronger interpretation of the term under which a logically incorrect argument is guaranteed to be wrong. In this (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  2
    Mark Andrew Thompson (forthcoming). Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts. Argumentation:1-21.
    Recent approaches to studying argumentation in institutions have pointed out the role of institutional rules in constraining argumentation that takes place in institutional contexts. However, few studies explain how these rules concretely affect actual argumentation. In particular, little work has been done as to the consequences of interactional asymmetry which often exists between participants in institutional contexts. While previous studies have suggested that this asymmetry exists as an aberration in the deliberative process, this paper argues that asymmetry is built into (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  2
    Ton van Haaften (forthcoming). Frans H. Van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean H.M. Wagemans: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. [REVIEW] Argumentation:1-7.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  5
    Judith Visser (forthcoming). Formation de mots et persuasion: Le discours de l'extrême droite française. Argumentation.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  8
    Douglas Walton (forthcoming). Some Artificial Intelligence Tools for Argument Evaluation: An Introduction. Argumentation:1-24.
    Even though tools for identifying and analyzing arguments are now in wide use in the field of argumentation studies, so far there is a paucity of resources for evaluating real arguments, aside from using deductive logic or Bayesian rules that apply to inductive arguments. In this paper it is shown that recent developments in artificial intelligence in the area of computational systems for modeling defeasible argumentation reveal a different approach that is currently making interesting progress. It is shown how these (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  4
    Harry Weger Jr (forthcoming). Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice. Argumentation:1-3.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46. John Woods (forthcoming). John Locke. Argumentation.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  6
    A. D. Wright & C. P. Butterfield (forthcoming). The NREL Teetering Hub Rotor Code: Final Results and Conclusions. Argumentation.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues