Search results for 'binding argument' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Adam Sennet (2008). The Binding Argument and Pragmatic Enrichment, or, Why Philosophers Care Even More Than Weathermen About 'Raining'. Philosophy Compass 3 (1):135-157.score: 174.0
    What is the proper way to draw the semantics-pragmatics distinction, and is what is said by a speaker ever enriched by pragmatics? An influential but controversial answer to the latter question is that the inputs to semantic interpretation contains representations of every contribution from context that is relevant to determining what is said, and that pragmatics never enriches the output of semantic interpretation. The proposal is bolstered by a controversial argument from syntactic binding designed to detect hidden syntactic (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jonathan Cohen & Samuel C. Rickless (2007). Binding Arguments and Hidden Variables. Analysis 67 (1):65–71.score: 160.0
    o (2000), 243). In particular, the idea is that binding interactions between the relevant expressions and natural lan- guage quantifiers are best explained by the hypothesis that those expressions harbor hidden but bindable variables. Recently, however, Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore have rejected such binding arguments for the presence of hid- den variables on the grounds that they overgeneralize — that, if sound, such arguments would establish the presence of hidden variables in all sorts of ex- pressions where (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christopher D. Manning, Argument Structure as a Locus for Binding Theory.score: 144.0
    The correct locus (or loci) of binding theory has been a matter of much discussion. Theories can be seen as varying along at least two dimensions. The rst is whether binding theory is con gurationally determined (that is, the theory exploits the geometry of a phrase marker, appealing to such purely structural notions as c-command and government) or whether the theory depends rather on examining the relations between items selected by a predicate (where by selection I am intending (...)
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stefano Predelli (2003). Unbound Riches: Comparative Adjectives and the Argument From Binding. Logic and Logical Philosophy 12:341-348.score: 144.0
    Uncontroversially, the semantic interpretation of comparative adjectives such as rich or small depends, among other factors, on a contextually salient comparison standard. Two alternative theories have been proposed in order to account for such contextual dependence: an indexicalist view, according to which comparative adjectives are indexical expressions, and a hidden variable approach, which insists that a comparison standard is contributed as the semantic value of a variable occurring at the level of semantic representation. In this paper, I defend the indexicalist (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Christopher Manning, Valency Versus Binding on the Distinctness of Argument Structure.score: 126.0
    Most theories of binding in most syntactic frameworks assume that the same notion of surface obliqueness that identi es the subject of a clause is also used for obliqueness conditions on re exive binding For instance in GB Chomsky binding theory is standardly de ned on S structure so that in Nancy can bind herself due to the c commanding con guration that also makes Nancy the subject of the sentence..
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Paul Elbourne (2008). The Argument From Binding. Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):89-110.score: 120.0
    In some utterances, some material does not seem to be explicitly expressed in words, but nevertheless seems to be part of the literal content of the utterance rather than an implicature. I will call material of this kind implicit content. The following are some relevant examples from the literature. (1) Everyone was sick. (2) I haven’t eaten. (3) It’s raining. In the case of (1), we are supposed to have asked Stephen Neale how his dinner party went last night (Neale, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Chad Carmichael (2012). Quantification and Conversation. In Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O.’Rourke & Harry S. Silverstein (eds.), Reference and Referring: Topics in Contemporary Philosophy. MIT Press. 305 - 323.score: 90.0
    Relative to an ordinary context, an utterance of the sentence ‘Everything is in the car’ communicates a proposition about a restricted domain. But how does this work? One possibility is that quantifier expressions like 'everything' are context sensitive and range over different domains in different contexts. Another possibility is that quantifier expressions are not context sensitive, but have a fixed, absolutely general meaning, and ordinary utterances communicate a restricted content via Gricean mechanisms. I argue that, contrary to received opinion, the (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Sarah Moss (2012). The Role of Linguistics in the Philosophy of Language. In Delia Graff Fara & Gillian Russell (eds.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Language.score: 74.0
    This paper discusses several case studies that illustrate the relationship between the philosophy of language and three branches of linguistics: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Among other things, I identify binding arguments in the linguistics literature preceding (Stanley 2000), and I invent binding arguments to evaluate various semantic and pragmatic theories of belief ascriptions.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Rachel Barney (2008). Aristotle's Argument for a Human Function. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 34:293-322.score: 66.0
    A generally ignored feature of Aristotle’s famous function argument is its reliance on the claim that practitioners of the crafts (technai) have functions: but this claim does important work. Aristotle is pointing to the fact that we judge everyday rational agency and agents by norms which are independent of their contingent desires: a good doctor is not just one who happens to achieve his personal goals through his work. But, Aristotle argues, such norms can only be binding on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Douglas Walton (2002). The Sunk Costs Fallacy or Argument From Waste. Argumentation 16 (4):473-503.score: 62.0
    This project tackles the problem of analyzing a specific form of reasoning called ‘sunk costs’ in economics and ‘argument from waste’ in argumentation theory. The project is to build a normative structure representing the form of the argument, and then to apply this normative structure to actual cases in which the sunk costs argument has been used. The method is partly structural and partly empirical. The empirical part is carried out through the analysis of case studies of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Eric Snyder (2013). Binding, Genericity, and Predicates of Personal Taste. Inquiry 56 (2-3):278-306.score: 56.0
    I argue for two major claims in this paper. First, I argue that the linguistic evidence best supports a certain form of contextualism about predicates of personal taste (PPTs) like ?fun? and ?tasty?. In particular, I argue that these adjectives are both individual-level predicates (ILPs) and anaphoric implicit argument taking predicates (IATPs). As ILPs, these naturally form generics. As anaphoric IATPs, PPTs show the same dependencies on context and distributional behavior as more familiar anaphoric IATPs, for example, ?local? and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Josh Dever (2004). Binding Into Character. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 34 (Supplement):29-80.score: 54.0
    Since Kaplan’s "Demonstratives", it has become a common-place to distinguish between the character and content of an expression, where the content of an expression is what it contributes to "what is said" by sentences containing that expression, and the character gives a rule for determining, in a context, the content of an expression. A tacit assumption of theories of character has been that character is autonomous from content – that semantic evaluation starts with character, adds context, and then derives content. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Massimo Grassia (2004). Consciousness and Perceptual Attention: A Methodological Argument. Essays in Philosophy 5 (1):1-23.score: 54.0
    Our perception of external features comprises, among others, functional and phenomenological levels. At the functional level, the perceiver’s mind processes external features according to its own causal- functional organization. At the phenomenological level, the perceiver has consciousness of external features. The question of this paper is: How do the functional and the phenomenological levels of perception relate to each other? The answer I propose is that functional states of specifically perceptual attention constitute the necessary basis for the arising of consciousness (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. James R. Hurford (2003). Ventral/Dorsal, Predicate/Argument: The Transformation From Perception to Meaning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 26 (3):301-311.score: 54.0
    It is necessary to distinguish among representations caused directly by perception, representations of past perceptions in long-term memory, the representations underlying linguis- tic utterances, and the surface phonological and grammatical structures of sentences. The target article dealt essentially with predicate-argument structure at the first of these levels of representation. Discussion of the commentaries mainly involves distinguishing among various applications of the term “predicate”; clarifying the assumed relationship between classical FOPL and language; clarifying the status of unique individuals as conceived (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. José Luis Bermúdez (1999). Rationality and the Backwards Induction Argument. Analysis 59 (4):243–248.score: 54.0
    Many philosophers and game theorists have been struck by the thought that the backward induction argument (BIA) for the finite iterated pris- oner’s dilemma (FIPD) recommends a course of action which is grossly counter-intuitive and certainly contrary to the way in which people behave in real-life FIPD-situations (Luce and Raiffa 1957, Pettit and Sugden 1989, Bovens 1997).1 Yet the backwards induction argument puts itself forward as binding upon rational agents. What are we to conclude from this? Is (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Reinhard Eckhorn (1993). Dynamic Bindings by Real Neurons: Arguments From Physiology, Neural Network Models and Information Theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (3):457.score: 40.0
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Pierre Pica (1987). On the Nature of the Reflexivization Cycle. In Joyce McDunough & Bernadette Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of The North East Linguistic Society. 17--2.score: 36.0
    This article claims that one has to distinguish between X° reflexives which do not bear phi-features, such as number, and XP complex reflexive - which do bear such features. The presence/vs absence of features, it is argued, explains the behavior of so called long distance reflexives - first observed, within the generative tradition, in scandinavian languages - but present all over. The observation according to which XP reflexives are clause bound, while X° reflexives in argument position are not, is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Craig Martin, Binding the Dogs of War: Japan and the Constitutionalizing Of.score: 36.0
    There is still very little constitutional control over the decision to use armed force, and very limited domestic implementation of the international principles of jus ad bellum, notwithstanding the increasing overlap between international and domestic legal systems and the spread of constitutional democracy. The relationship between constitutional and international law constraints on the use of armed force has a long history. Aspects of constitutional theory, liberal theories of international law, and transnational process theory of international law compliance, suggest that constitutional (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Anna Szabolcsi (2003). Binding On the Fly: Cross-Sentential Anaphora in Variable— Free Semantics. In R. Oehrle & J. Kruijff (eds.), Resource Sensitivity, Binding, and Anaphora. Kluwer. 215--227.score: 34.0
    Combinatory logic (Curry and Feys 1958) is a “variable-free” alternative to the lambda calculus. The two have the same expressive power but build their expressions differently. “Variable-free” semantics is, more precisely, “free of variable binding”: it has no operation like abstraction that turns a free variable into a bound one; it uses combinators—operations on functions—instead. For the general linguistic motivation of this approach, see the works of Steedman, Szabolcsi, and Jacobson, among others. The standard view in linguistics is that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Frank Arntzenius, Adam Elga & and John Hawthorne (2004). Bayesianism, Infinite Decisions, and Binding. Mind 113 (450):251-283.score: 30.0
    We pose and resolve several vexing decision theoretic puzzles. Some are variants of existing puzzles, such as ‘Trumped’ (Arntzenius and McCarthy 1997), ‘Rouble trouble’ (Arntzenius and Barrett 1999), ‘The airtight Dutch book’ (McGee 1999), and ‘The two envelopes puzzle’ (Broome 1999). Others are new. A unified resolution of the puzzles shows that Dutch book arguments have no force in infinite cases. It thereby provides evidence that reasonable utility functions may be unbounded and that reasonable credence functions need not be countably (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Muffy E. A. Siegel (1994). Such: Binding and the Pro-Adjective. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 17 (5):481 - 497.score: 30.0
    The facts aboutsuch, then, indicate not just thatsuch is a pro-adjective, but also that binding conditions apply broadly to pro-ADJs and pro-CNs, as well as to a wide range of pro-arguments. If this is true, the CN binding process accomplished by rules (40) and (41) might better be expressed in a system that uses a Cooper (1979) store mechanism. In fact, Stump (p. 144) notes that this could easily be done. Meanings of the type of∨ P n could (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Richard Breheny (2002). The Current State of (Radical) Pragmatics in the Cognitive Sciences. Mind and Language 17 (1&2):169–187.score: 30.0
    This paper considers some issues for traditional and radical views of the semantic content of utterances. It suggests that, as the radical view denies that linguistic meaning solely determines explicit content, it is required to come up with an alternative account of content. We focus on cognitively oriented radical theories and argue that none of the current alternatives for delimiting content is adequate. An alternative radical account of content is sketched. We also consider Stanley's (2000) binding argument in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.score: 25.0
    If an argument can be reconstructed in at least two different ways, then which reconstruction is to be preferred? In this paper I address this problem of argument reconstruction in terms of Ryle’s infinite regress argument against the view that knowledge-how requires knowledge-that. First, I demonstrate that Ryle’s initial statement of the argument does not fix its reconstruction as it admits two, structurally different reconstructions. On the basis of this case and infinite regress arguments generally, I (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Douglas Walton (2012). Building a System for Finding Objections to an Argument. Argumentation 26 (3):369-391.score: 25.0
    Abstract This paper addresses the role that argumentation schemes and argument visualization software tools can play in helping to find and counter objections to a given argument one is confronted with. Based on extensive analysis of features of the argumentation in these two examples, a practical four-step method of finding objections to an argument is set out. The study also applies the Carneades Argumentation System to the task of finding objections to an argument, and shows how (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. James B. Freeman (2001). Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective. Argumentation 15 (4):397-423.score: 25.0
    Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Barbara Warnick (2004). Rehabilitating AI: Argument Loci and the Case for Artificial Intelligence. [REVIEW] Argumentation 18 (2):149-170.score: 25.0
    This article examines argument structures and strategies in pro and con argumentation about the possibility of human-level artificial intelligence (AI) in the near term future. It examines renewed controversy about strong AI that originated in a prominent 1999 book and continued at major conferences and in periodicals, media commentary, and Web-based discussions through 2002. It will be argued that the book made use of implicit, anticipatory refutation to reverse prevailing value hierarchies related to AI. Drawing on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Zoltan P. Majdik & William M. Keith (2011). Expertise as Argument: Authority, Democracy, and Problem-Solving. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (3):371-384.score: 25.0
    This article addresses the problem of expertise in a democratic political system: the tension between the authority of expertise and the democratic values that guide political life. We argue that for certain problems, expertise needs to be understood as a dialogical process, and we conceptualize an understanding of expertise through and as argument that positions expertise as constituted by and a function of democratic values and practices, rather than in the possession of, acquisition of, or relationship to epistemic materials. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Larry Wright (2001). Justification, Discovery, Reason & Argument. Argumentation 15 (1):97-104.score: 25.0
    In distinguishing justification from discovery, the logical empiricists hoped to avoid confusing causal matters with normative ones. Exaggerating the virtue of this distinction, however, has disguised from us important features of the concept of a reason as it functions in human practice. Surfacing those features gives some insight into reasoning and argument.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. J. Anthony Blair (1998). The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.score: 25.0
    The paper's thesis is that dialogue is not an adequate model for all types of argument. The position of Walton is taken as the contrary view. The paper provides a set of descriptions of dialogues in which arguments feature in the order of the increasing complexity of the argument presentation at each turn of the dialogue, and argues that when arguments of great complexity are traded, the exchanges between arguers are turns of a dialogue only in an extended (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Harvey Siegel (1999). Argument Quality and Cultural Difference. Argumentation 13 (2):183-201.score: 25.0
    Central to argumentation theory is a concern with normativity. Argumentation theorists are concerned, among other things, with explaining why some arguments are good (or at least better than others) in the sense that a given argument provides reasons for embracing its conclusion which are such that a fair- minded appraisal of the argument yields the judgment that the conclusion ought to be accepted -- is worthy of acceptance -- by all who so appraise it.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Roosmaryn Pilgram (2012). Reasonableness of a Doctor’s Argument by Authority: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Specific Soundness Conditions. Journal of Argumentation in Context 1 (1):33-50.score: 25.0
    Argumentation can play an important role in medical consultation. A doctor could, for instance, argue in support of a treatment advice to overcome a patient’s hesitance about it. In this argumentation, the doctor might explicitly present him- or herself as an authority, thereby presenting an argument by authority. Depending on the specific conditions under which the doctor advances such an argument, the doctor’s argument by authority can constitute a sound or a fallacious contribution to the discussion. In (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Eddo Rigotti & Sara Greco Morasso (2010). Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components. Argumentation 24 (4):489-512.score: 25.0
    This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Stephen D. O'Leary (1997). Apocalyptic Argument and the Anticipation of Catastrophe: The Prediction of Risk and the Risks of Prediction. [REVIEW] Argumentation 11 (3):293-313.score: 25.0
    This essay proposes to extend the model of apocalyptic argument developedin my recent book Arguing the Apocalypse (O‘Leary, 1994) beyond the study ofreligious discourse, by applying this model to the debate over awell-publicized earthquake prediction that caused a widespread panic in theAmerican midwest in December, 1990. The first section of the essay willsummarize the essential elements of apocalyptic argument as I have earlierdefined them; the second section will apply the model to the case of the NewMadrid, Missouri, earthquake (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Leo Groarke (2002). Johnson on the Metaphysics of Argument. Argumentation 16 (3):277-286.score: 25.0
    This paper responds to two aspects of Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000). The first is his critique of deductivism. The second is his failure to make room for some species of argument (e.g., visual and kisceral arguments) proposed by recent commentators. In the first case, Johnson holds that argumentation theorists have adopted a notion of argument which is too narrow. In the second, that they have adopted one which is too broad. I discuss the case Johnson makes for (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Jane Macoubrie (2003). Logical Argument Structures in Decision-Making. Argumentation 17 (3):291-313.score: 25.0
    Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's practical reasoning theory has attracted a great deal of interest since its publication in 1969. Their most important assertion, however, that argument is the logical basis for practical decision-making, has been under-utilized, primarily because it was not sufficiently operationalized for research purposes. This essay presents an operationalization of practical reasoning for use in analyzing argument logics that emerge through group interaction. Particular elements of discourse and argument are identified as responding to principles put forward (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Don S. Levi (1994). Begging What is at Issue in the Argument. Argumentation 8 (3):265-282.score: 25.0
    This paper objects to treating begging the question as circular reasoning. It argues that what is at issue in the argument is not to be confused with the claim or position that the arguer is adopting, and that logicians from Aristotle on give the wrong definition and have difficulty making sense of the fallacy because they try to define it in terms of how an argument is defined by logical theory - as a sequence consisting of premises followed (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. G. Thomas Goodnight (1993). A ?New Rhetoric? For a ?New Dialectic?: Prolegomena to a Responsible Public Argument. [REVIEW] Argumentation 7 (3):329-342.score: 25.0
    This essay offers, as a counterpart to pragma-dialectical argument, a “new rhetoric” produced in the situated discourse of a public forum when a community addresses matters of common urgency and undertakes informed action. Such a rhetoric takes the principles of discourse ethics as its informing dialectic by identifying an interlocutor as one who is obligatedboth to argue effectively,and also to hold open, even reinforce, norms of communicative reason. Implications concerning the study of fallacies and theethos obligations of communicative reasoning (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Thomas A. Russman (1995). Postmodernism and the Parody of Argument. Argumentation 9 (1):123-135.score: 25.0
    Argument, in any full sense of the word, needs resources and assumptions that postmodernism does not provide. Postmodernism is not a phenomenon that emerged ‘after modernism,’ as it were, to replace it; postmodernism is just an ultimate expression of the nihilistic tendencies of modernism, tendencies which were present from its beginning and have continued to the present. A radical critique of modernism undercuts postmodernism as well and clears the way for a revival of realist foundations for argument and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Christopher W. Tindale (2002). A Concept Divided: Ralph Johnson's Definition of Argument. [REVIEW] Argumentation 16 (3):299-309.score: 25.0
    Ralph Johnson's Manifest Rationality (2000) is a major contribution to the field of informal logic, but the concept of argument that is central to its project suffers from a tension between the components that comprise it. This paper explores and addresses that tension by examining the implications of each of five aspects of the definition of ‘argument’.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Richard A. Cherwitz & Thomas J. Darwin (1995). On the Continuing Utility of Argument in a Postmodern World. Argumentation 9 (1):181-202.score: 25.0
    In this essay we contend that traditional theories of argument are consonant with and enrich the project of postmodernity. Reading postmodernity as ‘a rhetoric’ underscores how the process of discursively resolving conflicts is occasionally threatened by politically motivated efforts to misuse the methods of argument; it alerts us to the egregious acts that are and can be performed ‘in the name of,’ but not because of, rationality. Postmodernity is thus an attempt by a new generation of theorists to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. André Juthe (2009). Refutation by Parallel Argument. Argumentation 23 (2):133–169.score: 25.0
    This paper discusses the method when an argument is refuted by a parallel argument since the flaw of the parallel argument is clearly displayed. The method is explicated, examined and compared with two other general methods.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Michael Leff (2009). Perelman, Ad Hominem Argument, and Rhetorical Ethos. Argumentation 23 (3):301-311.score: 25.0
    Perelman’s view of the role of persons in argument is one of the most distinctive features of his break with Cartesian assumptions about reasoning. Whereas the rationalist paradigm sought to minimize or eliminate personal considerations by dismissing them as distracting and irrelevant, Perelman insists that argumentation inevitably does and ought to place stress on the specific persons engaged in an argument and that the relationship between speaker and what is spoken is always relevant and important. In taking this (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Marie J. Secor (2003). Reconsidering Contentious Argument: Augustus DeMorgan on Fallacy. [REVIEW] Argumentation 17 (2):131-143.score: 25.0
    This essay examines Augustus DeMorgan's chapter on fallacy in his Formal Logic (1847) in order to show how DeMorgan's treatment represents an expansion and advance upon Aristotle. It is important that Aristotle clearly distinguishes among dialectical, didactic, demonstrative, and contentious types of argument, based upon the acceptability of premises and the aims of participants. Appropriating Aristotle's list of fallacies, DeMorgan discusses examples that reveal how the charge and countercharge of fallacy function in contentious argument, which is more widespread (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Adam Corner & Ulrike Hahn (2007). Evaluating the Meta-Slope: Is There a Slippery Slope Argument Against Slippery Slope Arguments? [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (4):349-359.score: 25.0
    Slippery slope arguments (SSAs) have often been viewed as inherently weak arguments, to be classified together with traditional fallacies of reasoning and argumentation such as circular arguments and arguments from ignorance. Over the last two decades several philosophers have taken a kinder view, often providing historical examples of the kind of gradual change on which slippery slope arguments rely. Against this background, Enoch (2001, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 21(4), 629–647) presented a novel argument against SSA use that itself (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. James W. Hikins (1995). The Given of Achievement and the Reluctance to Assent: Argument and Inquiry in the Post-Postmodern World. [REVIEW] Argumentation 9 (1):137-162.score: 25.0
    Changes in the social, political, and intellectual climate worldwide portend radical changes in how humans view themselves and their world. This essay argues that the twenty-first century will usher in apost-postmodern age. The new epoch will be one in which argument practices more closely resemble their modernist forbears. The ‘given of achievement’ will overcome the postmodern ‘reluctance to assent.’ Argument will be practiced against the backdrop of realist philosophical frameworks and will be viewed as contributing to the accretion (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Manfred Kraus (2007). From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric. [REVIEW] Argumentation 21 (1):3-19.score: 25.0
    In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Marco Rühl (1999). The Revelation Argument. A 'Communicational Fallacy'. Argumentation 13 (1):73-96.score: 25.0
    In this paper it is argued that much can be gained for the analysis and evaluation of arguing when fallacies are not, or not only, conceived of as flawed premise–conclusion complexes but rather as argumentative moves which distort harmfully an interaction aiming at resolving communication problems argumentatively. Starting from Normative Pragmatics and the pragma-dialectical concept of fallacy, a case study is presented to illustrate a fallacy which is termed the 'revelation argument' because it is characterized by an interactor's revealing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. R. G. Scofield (2006). The Economic, Political, Strategic, and Rhetorical Uses of Simple Constructive Dilemma in Legal Argument. Argumentation 20 (1):1-14.score: 25.0
    The author argues that simple constructive dilemma is a valuable argument form for reasoning under relative conditions of uncertainty. When applied to legal argument this value of simple constructive dilemma is shown in its political, strategic, rhetorical, and especially economic, uses by lawyers and judges. After considering some examples of the use of the form by trial lawyers, the author gives examples of the more interesting use of the form by appellate courts. Research into the use of simple (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. KimaryN Shahin (1990). Argument as a Formulation-Decision-Decision... Sequence. Argumentation 4 (3):347-361.score: 25.0
    Problems with regard to the analysis of argumentative partly discourse arise from definitorial disconformity. In this article, Informal argument is taken as the primary definition to study the basic structure of argument from a fragment of an Agatha Christie novel. Bilmes' account of the notions of Formulation (F) and Decision (D+/D-) are adapted to describe the relations of opposition which are displayed in informal argument. The minimal structure of argument is represented by the formula F/D-/D-, in (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Emmanuelle Danblon (2009). The Notion of Pseudo-Argument in Perelman's Thought. Argumentation 23 (3):351-359.score: 25.0
    According to Perelman (Rhétoriques, Presses Universitaires de Bruxelles, 1989: 80), a pseudo-argument is an argument that is supposed to be convincing from a given audience viewpoint, while it is not from another audience viewpoint. Such a claim raises the traditional problem of the boundaries between the well known “convince versus persuade” dichotomy. This paper aims at investigating it from a contemporary rhetorical and argumentative perspective which will take into account the fictional dimension of persuasion. In this perspective, it (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000