A Third Perspective on Argument (Hample, 1985)

Argumentation has a broad, multidisciplinary scope. Being a point of overlap of diverse spheres of knowledge and sciences makes the study of argumentation so complex an enterprise, which still seeks to determine in precise terms what its object is and how it should be addressed. This paper is meant to offer a concise overview of argumentation and its various approaches. Focus is laid on the fundamental concepts that bear some relevance to the study of argumentation. Further, attempt is made to draw a sketch of its history and an outline of its modern theoretical distinctions. L'argumentation a une portée large et multidisciplinaire. Le fait d'être un point de chevauchement de différentes sphères de connaissance et des multiple sciences rend l'étude de l'argumentation une entreprise si complexe, qui cherche encore à déterminer en termes précis ce que porte son objet et comment il devrait être abordée. Cet article vise à offrir un aperçu concis de l'argumentation et de ses différentes approches. L'accent est mis sur les concepts fondamentaux qui portent un certain intérêt pour l'étude de l'argumentation. En outre, une tentative est faite pour dessiner une esquisse de son histoire et un aperçu de ses distinctions théoriques modernes.

Argumentation, 1994

The goal of this book is to explore a variety of perspectives and situations in which teachers and learners can find arguments," Trapp and Schuetz write of this Festschrifi for Wayne Brockriede, an intrepid teacher and inspiring scholar. Perspectives displays argument inquiries from social science, pragma-dialectics, symbolic interactionism, advocacy practice, informal logic, critical theory, postmodern critique, narratology, and value analysis. Thus, the editors craft a successful introduction to the varied study of argumentation which, together with an extensive bibliography, becomes an excellent place to begin to ask Brockriede's keynote question: "Where is argument?" Interestingly, the least likely place to find argument is in debates among the twenty-six authors who present research programs for the volume. Like the characters from a Kurosawa film or Pirandello play, each agenda speaks from a more or tess singular point of view. The result gives rise to a curiously disquieting feeling that Perspectives offers not mere 'snapshots' of common phenomena, as the editors would have it, but sealed positions that silently refuse to engage one another. This review unseals perspectives by opening a discussion on what surely must become competing points of view. HUMANISM, MODERNISM, AND POST-MODERNISM The latent controversy can be nowhere better engaged than in review of the differences among the opening three essays that introduce the book. Wayne Brockriede looks for argument in the common characteristics of communication that bear the traditional and well-known stamp of civic humanism: mutual recognition by interlocutors of uncertainty, competition, inference, justification, and shared orientation. However, the essay strains against and finally releases inquiry from the grounds of tradition by echoing David Berlo's soporific: "meanings are not in words, but in people" (p. 4). Likewise, arguments are to be found not in the traditional forms and functions of communicative reasoning, but 'in people'. Arguments are what 'real people' do when arguing. No more. No less. Joseph Wenzel's 'Three Perspectives on Argument' extends Brockriede's perspectivism, but adds a modernist flair. He delineates rhetoric, dialectic, and logic as process, procedure, and product, and so defines argument by virtue of distinctive materials and goals. This is a very important essay that is state-of-the art for argumentation studies, and thus influences Habermas's important project on argumentation. 1 Note, however, that Wenzel's modernist viewpoint con

Argumentation, 2014

Every 4 years, for the past three decades, the world of argumentation research has gathered in Amsterdam at the International Society for the Study of Argumentation conferences to explore advances in understanding argumentation and how argumentation advances our understanding of the human condition. While comprehensive proceedings of selected papers are produced to document what has transpired in the world of argumentation over the preceding 4 years, there remains the important matter of taking the intellectual pulse of the world's argumentation scholars, to detect the beating heart of the community of scholars and the health and wellness of argumentation scholarship. One of the great services Frans van Eemeren, and his colleagues, have provided this community is a diagnosis that helps identify the assets upon which the health and wellness of the community can further build. This service has come in the form of several edited volumes, the most recent of which, Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Twenty Exploratory Studies, is edited by van Eemeren and Bart Garssen and published by Springer. The twenty contributions featured in the Topical Themes volume are organized into five sections: Theoretical Perspectives, Views on Dissensus and Deep Disagreement, Types of Argumentation, Classical Themes Revisited, Visual Argumentation, and Empirical Research. Each theme captures three to four contributions composed by authors from across the range of argumentation research and across the generations of scholars interested in advancing argumentation scholarship. The Theoretical Perspectives theme enables the reader to explore important twists and turns in the development of key aspects of argumentation theory's contemporary scene. The first essay by Klumpp traces paths from the classical M. Aakhus

Towards an integrated theory of argumentation, 2000

https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/ossaarchive/OSSA3/papersandcommentaries/24/ Julieta Haidar & Pedro Reygadas The purpose of this paper is to establish some main characteristics of the argumentation field and to link argumentation theory and Discourse Analysis to contribute to its project with a systematic consideration of power, ideology and culture functioning. After a brief initial summary about the diversity of this field, we consider some central issues of analytical theories (in this case, we leave practically aside argument formation theories) in order to establish contact between approaches normally working in isolation and ignoring each other. At last, we summarize our position and set the link between argumentation and Discourse Analysis.

Argumentation

Pragmatics and Cognition

The aim of this paper is to explore the status of argumentative discourse. We argue that argumentation can contribute to instances of different discourse genres, regardless of whether it is functional to their purposes. By analyzing examples from the daily press in the light of an approach to discourse analysis inspired by pragmatics, we show that also texts that are not expected to be argumentative have underlying argumentative structures and that a text’s being argumentative is a matter of degree: the understanding of underlying argumentative structures contributes to a varying extent to the understanding of what a text as a whole means and of its point in the speech situation. This role of argumentative structures in text understanding suggests considering argumentation as a cognitively-based dimension of discourse, connected to human rationality.

Argumentation, 2004

Argumentation is to my knowledge the first English textbook on argumentation based on the pragma-dialectical theory, and written by leading researchers in that field. Since the authors come from a different theoretical orientation than mine, and use their textbook in a different educational setting, it seemed prudent to send them (except Rob Grootendorst, who unfortunately passed away a few years ago) an earlier version of this paper in order to present a more fair and accurate book review. It will include some information from my profitable exchange with them. Argumentation is intended to accomplish two general goals: to provide students with an opportunity to apply fundamental aspects of the pragmadialectical theory, and to introduce them to the analysis, evaluation, and presentation of written and oral arguments. We must bear in mind that this textbook is used in a course that typically covers an introduction to subjects such as the classical backgrounds of argumentation theory (including syllogistic logic), classical and modern approaches to rhetoric and persuasion theory, argumentation in special fields, such as politics and law, speech act theory and Gricean conversational implicatures, conversation analysis and discourse analysis, theories about the writing process, text genres and stylistics. In fact, students use the textbook for about six weeks, and spend the remainder of the eight weeks on these other subjects. The authors intended this book to be concise precisely in order to give them the flexibility to cover these other interesting areas of argumentation and communication. Where there is conciseness, omissions are inescapable. So in fairness to the authors, we should keep in mind their goals when I identify some omission. Though this textbook does cover many of the core concepts and skills found in North American critical thinking textbooks, it is not intended nor would it be appropriate by itself, due to its conciseness, to replace these textbooks in the North American context. If one were to do so, as I did in the summer of 2003, one would be required to supplement the text with more information and assignments. I was informed by the authors that they also include additional assignments, for instance, identifying missing premises and/or conclusions, analysing and evaluating longer arguments, writing a critical review, finding examples of fallacies and writing a short essay justifying why the examples should be considered fallacious. Their textbook also sometimes uses a theoretical vocabulary when ordinary words would be just as adequate and more useful to a North American first year student, who typically has practical rather than theo-ARGU ART. NO. 340BR PIPS. NO. 5265948 DISK, CP PDF OUTPUT