Argumentation 6 (2):141-159 (1992)

Abstract
This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in which the concept of relevance is differentiated along three co-ordinate dimensions: object, domain and aspect. With the help of this taxonomy, it can be shown that the problems of evaluative relevance with which the standard approach to fallacies cannot satisfactory deal can be more systematically approached within a pragma-dialectical framework. This is demonstrated for the argumentum and hominem, which is erroneously treated as a homogenous type of relevance fallacy in logico-centric analyses, so that cases where this is not justified must be treated as ad hoc exceptions
Keywords Argument  argumentative discourse  argumentum ad hominem  fallacies  pragma-dialectics  relevance
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF00154322
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: 62,496
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.
A Practical Study of Argument.Trudy Govier - 1991 - Wadsworth Pub. Co..
Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - 1953 - Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Fallacies.C. L. Hamblin - 1970 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 160:492-492.

View all 16 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.

View all 20 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Introduction to 'Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem'.Douglas Walton - 1993 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 12 (3-4):24-24.
Philosophy and Argumentum Ad Hominem.Henry W. Johnstone - 1952 - Journal of Philosophy 49 (15):489-498.
Ad Hominem Fallacies, Bias, and Testimony.Audrey Yap - 2013 - Argumentation 27 (2):97-109.
The Case for Ad Hominem Arguments.Lawrence M. Hinman - 1982 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 60 (4):338 – 345.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-01-04

Total views
72 ( #147,608 of 2,446,367 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #310,179 of 2,446,367 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes