How can argumentation be theorized?

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, 2015

The book presents a selection of paper authored by J. Anthony Blair, one of the most important personalities in the field of argumentation studies, ''a frontline worker or pioneer'', (Christopher Tindale), and, I'd like to add, a stylist. The book cover 30 years of research, from 1981 to 2011. Twenty papers are grouped under four thematic sections, ''Critical Thinking'', ''Informal Logic'', ''Argumentation Theory'', and ''Logic, Dialectic and Rhetoric''. Each section is preceded by an ''Introduction'' giving its main orientation, and followed by a ''Postscript'', presenting the 2012 author's afterthoughts; all that gives to the book a ''novelistic impulse'' prompting the reader to further readings and new theoretical developments. This review focuses on three key questions, that is, (1) the evolution of Blair theoretical vision, from the ''Relevance-Acceptability-Sufficiency'' criteria, which have defined what may be called the ''standard Informal Logic theory'' (2) the integration of the reasoning, schemes and the dialogue with the Pragmadialectical theory; (3) the dialogue with rhetoric about the plurality of norms applicable to authentic argumentative discourse. Keywords Argumentation Á Informal logic Á Reasoning Á Rhetoric Á Pragmadialectic Á Dialogue The book presents a selection of paper authored by J. Anthony Blair, one of the most important personalities in the field of argumentation studies, ''a frontline worker or pioneer'', as Christopher Tindale aptly puts it in his illuminating introduction, and,

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

Garssen, is a collection of 20 papers selected from contributions to the proceedings of the 8 th conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA), held in Amsterdam in 2014. This collection is filtered into six dimensions of argumentation theory: general perspectives; analysis of argumentation; evaluation of argumentation; argument schemes; contextual embedding of argumentation; and linguistic approaches to argumentation. These six themes chosen for the collection appear to be distilled from the 18 themes featured in the ISSA conference, although the absence of editorial commentary on this organizational scheme leaves such speculation up to the reader. The different parts follow a natural order, beginning with ways to approach the process of argument theory as a whole, continuing with ways to work through the actual argument construction and ending with ways to put these theories into verbal practice.

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.

2001

Abstract Given the pragmatic tum recently taken by argumentation studies, we owe renewed attention to Henry Johnstone's views on the primacy of process over product. In particular, Johnstone's decidedly non-cooperative model is a refreshing alternative to the current dialogic theories of arguing, one which opens the way for specifically rhetorical lines of inquiry.

Argumentation

Argumentation, 2023

In 'The making of argumentation theory' van Eemeren and van Haaften describe the contributions made to the five components of a full-fledged research program of argumentation theory by four prominent approaches to the discipline: formal dialectics, rhetoric/pragmalinguistics, informal logic, and pragma-dialectics. Most of these approaches do not contribute to all components, but to some in particular. Starting from the pragma-dialectical view of the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness-the crucial issue in argumentation theory-van Eemeren and van Haaften explain the positions taken by representatives from the approaches discussed and indicate where they differ from the pragma-dialectical approach. It transpires that approaches focusing on dialectical reasonableness are, next to pragma-dialectics, formal dialectics and informal logic; approaches focusing on rhetorical effectiveness are, next to pragma-dialectics, rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, and the informal logician Tindale. When it comes to the relationship between dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness, some interest in it is shown in rhetoric and pragmalinguistics, but only in pragma-dialectics and in Tindale's work is it a real focus. The main difference between Tindale's view and the pragma-dialectical view is that in pragma-dialectics the decisive role in deciding about reasonableness is assigned to a code of conduct for reasonable argumentative discourse and in Tindale's approach this role is assigned to Tindale's interpretation of the Perelmanian universal audience.