Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective

Argumentation 15 (4):397-423 (2001)
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 given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses
Keywords Linked, convergent argument structure  multiple, co-ordinatively compound argumentation  logical, dialectical analysis  conclusive  relevance  inference rule
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/A:1012022330148
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 25,751
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Mapping the Structure of Debate.Jeffrey Yoshimi - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22.
Phenomenological Argumentative Structure.Gilbert Plumer - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):173-189.
Consciousness and the State/Transitive/Creature Distinction.R. McBride - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (2):181-196.
How Critical is the Dialectical Tier?Qingyin Liang & Yun Xie - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):229-242.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

25 ( #195,454 of 2,146,888 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #279,062 of 2,146,888 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums