Abstract
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 or metaphorical sense. It argues that many of the properties of engaged back-and-forth exchanges of paradigmatic argument dialogues are not found in ‘solo’ arguments, and that at least some of the norms appropriate to the former type of argument, such as some of the pragma-dialectical rules of van Eemeren and Grootendorst's model, do not apply to the latter.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Barth, E. M. and J. L. Martens (eds.): 1982, Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Barth, E. M.: 1982a, 'Preface', in Barth and Martens, vii-xi.
Barth, E. M.: 1982b, 'A Normative-Pragmatic Foundation of the Rules of Some Systems of Formal3 Dialectics', in Barth and Martens, 159-170.
Beardsley, Monroe C.: 1976, Writing With Reason, Logic for Composition, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Blair, J. Anthony and Ralph H. Johnson: 1987, 'Argumentation as Dialectical', Argumentation 1, 41-56.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob rootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris, Dordrecht.
Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst, 1992: Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies, A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Harman, Gilbert and Judith Jarvis Thomson: 1996. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Lorenz, Kuno: 1982, 'The Criteria for the Choice of Rules of Dialectic Logic', in Barth and Martens, 145-157.
Lorenzen, P.: 1982, 'Die Dialogische Begründung von Logikkalkülen', in Barth and Martens, 23-54.
Naess, Arne: 1966, Communication and Argument, Elements of Applied Semantics, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Nozick, Robert: 1974, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Basic Books, New York.
Perelman, Chaim and Lucy Olbrechts-Tyteca: 1958, La Nouvelle Rhétorique: Traité de l'Argumentation, Presse Universitaires de France, Paris.
Rawls, John: 1971, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Walton, Douglas: 1992a, The Place of Emotion in Argument, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA.
Walton, Douglas: 1992b, Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Walton, Douglas: 1989, Informal Logic, A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Walton, Douglas: 1995, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.
Walton, Douglas: 1996a, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Walton, Douglas: 1996b, Argument Structure, A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Walton, Douglas and Erik C.W. Krabbe: 1995, Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning, State University of New York Press, Albany.
West, Caroline: 1997, 'Review of Gilbert Harman and Judith Jarvis Thomson oral Relativism and Moral Objectivity', Australasian Journal of Philosophy 75, 116-117.
Whitehead, Alfred North: 1929, Process and Reality, The Macmillan Company, New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Blair, J.A. The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument. Argumentation 12, 325–339 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007768503175
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007768503175