35 found

Year:

  1.  3
    Argumentative Writing Behavior of Graduate EFL Learners.Abdollahzadeh Esmaeel, Farsani Mohammad Amini & Beikmohammadi Maryam - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):641-661.
    This study analyzed the argumentative writing behavior of Iranian graduate learners of English as Foreign Language in their English essays. Further, the correlations between the use of argument elements and overall writing quality as well as soundness of produced arguments were investigated. To this end, 150 essays were analyzed. The sample essays were found to be predominantly deductive in terms of rhetorical pattern. Moreover, they mainly utilized ‘data’ and ‘claim’ most frequently with secondary elements of argument as the least produced (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Radiolab’s Sound Strategic Maneuvers.Eckstein Justin - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):663-680.
    How might argumentation scholars approach sound? Using the analytics afforded by strategic maneuvering, this essay identifies three unique features of sonic presentational devices: they are immersive, immediate and embodied. Although these features offer arguers presentational resource, they also pose new problems to the reasonable resolution of disagreement: immersion hazards overlap, immediacy risks rate of delivery beyond reflection, and materiality can coerce listeners. To theorize strategic use of sound, I reconstruct and analyze a popular Radiolab segment “The Unconscious Toscanini of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  1
    Brothers in Arms: Virtue and Pragma-Dialectics.Gascón José Ángel - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):705-724.
    Virtue argumentation theory focuses on the arguers’ character, whereas pragma-dialectics focuses on argumentation as a procedure. In this paper I attempt to explain that both theories are not opposite approaches to argumentation. I argue that, with the help of some non-fundamental changes in pragma-dialectics and some restrictions in virtue argumentation theory, it is possible to regard these theories as complementary approaches to the argumentative practice.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4.  1
    “You Think That Says a Lot, but Really It Says Nothing”: An Argumentative and Linguistic Account of an Idiomatic Expression Functioning as a Presentational Device.Jansen Henrike - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):615-640.
    This paper discusses idiomatic expressions like ‘that says it all’, ‘that says a lot’ etc. when used in presenting an argument. These expressions are instantiations of the grammatical pattern that says Q, in which Q is an indefinite quantifying expression. By making use of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and the linguistic theory of construction grammar it is argued that instantiations of that says Q expressing positive polarity can fulfil the role of an argumentation’s linking premise. Furthermore, an analysis of (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  3
    Fernando Leal Carretero : Argumentación y Pragma-Dialéctica: Estudios En Honor a Frans van Eemeren.Paula Olmos - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):725-726.
  6. Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?Peter Jan Schellens, Ester Šorm, Rian Timmers & Hans Hoeken - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):681-703.
    Can argumentation schemes play a part in the critical processing of argumentation by lay people? In a qualitative study, participants were invited to come up with strong and weak arguments for a given claim and were subsequently interviewed for why they thought the strong argument was stronger than the weak one. Next, they were presented with a list of arguments and asked to rank these arguments from strongest to weakest, upon which they were asked to motivate their judgments in an (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  1
    Christian Plantin: Dictionnaire de L’Argumentation. Une Introduction aux Études D’Argumentation.Tseronis Assimakis - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (4):727-734.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  3
    Introduction for a Special Volume of Argumentation on Presumptions, Presumptive Inferences and Burdens of Proof.Bermejo-Luque Lilian & Corredor Cristina - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):463-467.
    From 26th to 28th of April 2016, it took place in the University of Granada a conference on presumptions, presumptive inferences and burdens of proof that, joint with other ongoing initiatives, has contributed to renew the interest of the argumentation community in analysing these notions and the relationships between them. This special volume of Argumentation consists of a selection of papers presented at this conference.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  1
    Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory.Petar Bodlović - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):513-534.
    According to Douglas Walton, the concept of presumption relates to both logical and dialogical components. Logically, a presumption is the conclusion of a presumptive defeasible inference. Dialogically, the function of a presumptions to shift the burden of proof to the respondent in order to move the dialogue forward when the proponent, due to an objective lack of evidence, cannot present a sufficiently persuasive proposition. Presumptive status, assigned only at the argumentation stage of dialogue, is provisional: a particular presumption stands until (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  1
    Presumptions in Speech Acts.Cristina Corredor - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):573-589.
    The aim of this paper is to explore the viability of accounting for presumptions as a subtype of verdictives, within the framework of the Austinian approach to speech acts. The available set of felicity conditions is examined and worked out, in order to try and account in particular for a main feature of presumptions, namely, their function in shifting the burden of proof. In order to extend the Austinian framework as required, the notion of pragmatic presupposition accommodation is shown to (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  6
    The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation.Raymundo Gama - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):555-572.
    This paper explores two persistent questions in the literature on presumptions: the place and the nature of presumptions in law and legal argumentation. These questions were originally raised by James Bradley Thayer, one of the masters of the Law of Evidence and the author of the classic chapter devoted this subject in A preliminary treatise on Evidence. Like Thayer, I believe that these questions deserve attention. First the paper shows that the connection between presumptions and argumentation is a constant feature (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  5
    Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk.David Godden - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):485-511.
    Standards and norms for reasoning function, in part, to manage epistemic risk. Properly used, modal qualifiers like presumably have a role in systematically managing epistemic risk by flagging and tracking type-specific epistemic merits and risks of the claims they modify. Yet, argumentation-theoretic accounts of presumption often define it in terms of modalities of other kinds, thereby failing to recognize the unique risk profile of each. This paper offers a stipulative account of presumption, inspired by Ullmann-Margalit, as an inferentially generated modal (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions.Lewiński Marcin - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):591-613.
    In their extensive overview of various concepts of presumption Godden and Walton recognise “the heterogeneous picture of presumptions that exists in argumentation theory today”. I argue that this heterogeneity results from an epiphenomenal character of the notion of presumption. To this end, I first distinguish between three main classes of presumptions. Framework presumptions define the basic conditions of linguistic understanding and meaningful conversation. The “presumption of veracity” is their paradigm case. I argue that such presumptions are satisfactorily covered by the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  24
    Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments.Gilbert Plumer - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):469-484.
    Although in some contexts the notions of an ordinary argument’s presumption, assumption, and presupposition appear to merge into the one concept of an implicit premise, there are important differences between these three notions. It is argued that assumption and presupposition, but not presumption, are basic logical notions. A presupposition of an argument is best understood as pertaining to a propositional element (a premise or the conclusion) e of the argument, such that the presupposition is a necessary condition for the truth (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  15.  1
    The Burden of Proof in Philosophical Persuasion Dialogue.Conny Rhode - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (3):535-554.
    Dialogical egalitarianism is the thesis that any proposition asserted in dialogue, if questioned, must be supported or else retracted. Dialogical foundationalism is the thesis that some propositions are privileged over this burden of proof, standing in no need of support unless and until support for their negation is provided. I first discuss existing arguments for either thesis, dismissing each one of them. Absent a successful principled argument, I then examine which thesis it is pragmatically more advantageous to adopt in analytic (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16.  57
    Leonard Nelson: A Theory of Philosophical Fallacies. [REVIEW]Andrew Aberdein - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):455-461.
  17.  6
    Christopher W. Tindale: The Philosophy of Argument and Audience Reception.Daniel Beresheim - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):451-454.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  3
    Toulmin’s Logical Types.David Botting - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):433-449.
    In “The Uses of Argument” Toulmin introduces a number of concepts that have become popular in argumentation theory, such as data, claim, warrant, backing, force, field, and, most fundamentally, the concept of a “logical type”. Toulmin never defines the concept of a logical type or a field very clearly, and different interpretations can be found in the literature, either reconstructing what Toulmin has in mind, or revising his concepts to suit other concerns. A natural history of these concepts is not (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  8
    The Structure of Arguments by Analogy in Law.Luís Duarte D’Almeida & Cláudio Michelon - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):359-393.
    Successful accounts of analogy in law have two burdens to discharge. First, they must reflect the fact that the conclusion of an argument by analogy is a normative claim about how to decide a certain case. Second, they must not fail to accord relevance to the fact that the source case was authoritatively decided in a certain way. We argue in the first half of this paper that the common view of the structure of analogical arguments in law cannot overcome (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  5
    On the Norms of Visual Argument: A Case for Normative Non-Revisionism.David Godden - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):395-431.
    Visual arguments can seem to require unique, autonomous evaluative norms, since their content seems irreducible to, and incommensurable with, that of verbal arguments. Yet, assertions of the ineffability of the visual, or of visual-verbal incommensurability, seem to preclude counting putatively irreducible visual content as functioning argumentatively. By distinguishing two notions of content, informational and argumentative, I contend that arguments differing in informational content can have equivalent argumentative content, allowing the same argumentative norms to be rightly applied in their evaluation.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  4
    Using Argumentative Tools to Understand Inner Dialogue.Sara Greco - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):331-358.
    The starting point of this paper is the acknowledgement that individual reasoning, understood as inner dialogue, and social argumentation, albeit they are two different phenomena, share some similarities. On this basis, this paper sets out to apply instruments from argumentation theory to inner dialogue in order to better explain it. Within this framework, some limitations to the study of inner dialogue are also discussed; and methodological suggestions are provided in order to grasp what could be considered data on “inner dialogue” (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  4
    Analogical Arguments: Inferential Structures and Defeasibility Conditions.Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton & Christopher Tindale - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):221-243.
    The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure and the defeasibility conditions of argument from analogy, addressing the issues of determining the nature of the comparison underlying the analogy and the types of inferences justifying the conclusion. In the dialectical tradition, different forms of similarity were distinguished and related to the possible inferences that can be drawn from them. The kinds of similarity can be divided into four categories, depending on whether they represent fundamental semantic features of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  2
    Re-Contextualising Argumentative Meanings: An Adaptive Perspective.Thanh Nyan - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):267-299.
    The study of context can benefit greatly from re-examining some of the concepts arising from Anscombre and Ducrot’s argumentation theory from an adaptive perspective. By focusing on discourse dynamism, AT provides fresh angles from which to view key issues, such as the nature of context triggers; whether context construction is necessarily a background activity; in what way utterances set themselves up as contexts for the upcoming discourse; and the nature of the inferences whereby background knowledge and information are accessed. The (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  3
    Group Emotions in Collective Reasoning: A Model.Claire Polo, Christian Plantin, Kristine Lund & Gerald Niccolai - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):301-329.
    Education and cognition research today generally recognize the tri-dimensional nature of reasoning processes as involving cognitive, social and emotional phenomena. However, there is so far no theoretical framework articulating these three dimensions from a descriptive perspective. This paper aims at presenting a first model of how group emotions work in collective reasoning, and specifies their social and cognitive functions. This model is inspired both from a multidisciplinary literature review and our extensive previous empirical work on an international corpus of videotaped (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  4
    Speech Acts in a Dialogue Game Formalisation of Critical Discussion.Jacky Visser - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (2):245-266.
    In this paper a dialogue game for critical discussion is developed. The dialogue game is a formalisation of the ideal discussion model that is central to the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. The formalisation is intended as a preparatory step to facilitate the development of computational tools to support the pragma-dialectical study of argumentation. An important dimension of the pragma-dialectical discussion model is the role played by speech acts. The central issue addressed in this paper is how the speech act perspective (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  7
    Advancing Polylogical Analysis of Large-Scale Argumentation: Disagreement Management in the Fracking Controversy.Mark Aakhus & Marcin Lewiński - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):179-207.
    This paper offers a new way to make sense of disagreement expansion from a polylogical perspective by incorporating various places in addition to players and positions into the analysis. The concepts build on prior implicit ideas about disagreement space by suggesting how to more fully account for argumentative context, and its construction, in large-scale complex controversies. As a basis for our polylogical analysis, we use a New York Times news story reporting on an oil train explosion—a significant point in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  27.  11
    Factors Predicting the Intent to Engage in Arguments in Close Relationships: A Revised Model.Ioana A. Cionea, Adam S. Richards & Sara K. Straub - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):121-163.
    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, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  11
    Self-Reporting and the Argumentativeness Scale: An Empirical Examination.Stephen M. Croucher, Alfred DeMaris, Audra R. Diers-Lawson & Shannon Roper - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):23-43.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  7
    Unacceptable Generalizations in Arguments on Legal Evidence.Christian Dahlman - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):83-99.
    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  
  30.  13
    F. H. Van Eemeren, B. Garssen : Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory.Sara Greco - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):213-220.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31.  19
    Must a Successful Argument Convert an Ideal Audience?Xingming Hu - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):165-177.
    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.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  7
    Towards a Theory of Close Analysis for Dispute Mediation Discourse.Mathilde Janier & Chris Reed - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):45-82.
    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  
  33.  8
    The Formalization of Critical Discussion.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):101-119.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  8
    Institutional Argumentation and Institutional Rules: Effects of Interactive Asymmetry on Argumentation in Institutional Contexts.Mark Andrew Thompson - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):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  
  35.  8
    Scrutinizing Argumentation in Practice.Harry Weger - 2017 - Argumentation 31 (1):209-211.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
 Previous issues
  
Next issues