Anthropology and Philosophy 8 (1-2):101-120 (2007)
AbstractUsing tools like argument diagrams and profiles of dialogue, this paper studies a number of examples of everyday conversational argumentation where determination of relevance and irrelevance can be assisted by means of adopting a new dialectical approach. According to the new dialectical theory, dialogue types are normative frameworks with specific goals and rules that can be applied to conversational argumentation. In this paper is shown how such dialectical models of reasonable argumentation can be applied to a determination of whether an argument in a specific case is relevant are not in these examples. The approach is based on a linguistic account of dialogue and text from congruity theory, and on the notion of a dialectical shift. Such a shift occurs where an argument starts out as fitting into one type of dialogue, but then it only continues to makes sense as a coherent argument if it is taken to be a part of a different type of dialogue
Similar books and articles
Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):102-128.
A Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Baculum Fallacy.Douglas Walton - 2014 - Informal Logic 34 (3):276-310.
The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
Dialogue games as dialogue models for interacting with, and via, computers.Nicolas Maudet & David Moore - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
The Contextuality of Fallacies.Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser - 2007 - Informal Logic 27 (1):59-68.
How to make and defend a proposal in a deliberation dialogue.Douglas Walton - 2006 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 14 (3):177-239.
Dialectical and heuristic arguments: presumptions and burden of proof.Fabrizio Macagno - 2010 - In C. Tindale & C. Reed (eds.), Dialectics, Dialogue and Argumentation: An Examination of Douglas Walton's Theories of Reasoning and Argument. College Publications. pp. 45-57.
Dialogue Protocols for Formal Fallacies.Magdalena Kacprzak & Olena Yaskorska - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (3):349-369.
A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning.H. Prakken & G. Sartor - 1996 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 4 (3-4):331-368.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - Amsterdam: Springer.
Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues.Sarah Bigi & Fabrizio Macagno - 2017 - Discourse Studies 19 (2):148-168.
Profiles of Dialogue for Relevance.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Informal Logic 36 (4):523-562.
Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning.Fabrizio Macagno & Benedetta Zavatta - 2014 - Argumentation 28 (4):453-488.
References found in this work
Relevance: Communication and Cognition.Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson - 1986/1995 - Oxford: Blackwell.
Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning.Douglas Neil Walton & Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1995 - Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press.
The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation.Chaïm Perelman - 1969 - Notre Dame, [Ind.]University of Notre Dame Press.