Argumentation 28 (3):325-339 (2014)

Abstract
A persuasion dialogue is a dialogue in which a conflict between agents with respect to their points of view arises at the beginning of the talk and the agents have the shared, global goal of resolving the conflict and at least one agent has the persuasive aim to convince the other party to accept an opposing point of view. I argue that the persuasive force of argument may have not only extreme values but also intermediate strength. That is, I wish to introduce two additional types of the effects of persuasion in addition to successful and unsuccessful ones (cf. Van Eemeren and Houtlosser in Argumentation 14(3):293–305, 2000; Advances in pragma-dialectics. Sic Sat, Amsterdam, 2002; Walton in A pragmatic theory of fallacy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1995; Walton and Krabbe in Commitment in dialogue: basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 1995). I propose a model which provides for modified versions of the standpoint of an agent needed in order to bring about two possible outcomes of a persuasion dialogue. These two outcomes I label partially-successful and over-successful. I call the potential, not yet verbalised, standpoint of an agent here the original topic t. Based on some aspects of relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson in Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford, 1986; Wilson and Sperber in The handbook of pragmatics. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, 2006), I explain that the modified version of the original topic t is an implicature created from the original topic t and from a specific mental topic which belongs to, what I call the beneficial cognitive model (hence BCM). I define BCMi,t as a set of topics which are within the area of agent i’s interest of persuasion with respect to t
Keywords Persuasion  Persuasive force of argument  Success  Goal  Relevance theory  Mental topic  Cognition
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10503-014-9323-5
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Vale Press.

View all 27 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation.A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans - 2014 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36 (1):41-58.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Persuasion Dialogue in Online Dispute Resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
The Goals of Persuasion.Isabella Poggi - 2005 - Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (2):297-336.
Argumentation as Rational Persuasion.J. Anthony Blair - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (1):71-81.
Dialogue Theory for Critical Thinking.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (2):169-184.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-07-18

Total views
27 ( #404,471 of 2,448,752 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #447,034 of 2,448,752 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes