Abstract
In the last two decades various theoretically-oriented publications have appeared about argument schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
The idea of argument schemes and critical questions in a dialectical testing procedure was introduced in van Eemeren, Grootendorst and Kruiger (1978). Van Eemeren and Kruiger (1987) give an account of the identification of argument schemes. In van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) the pragma-dialectical typology of argument schemes is elaborated, while van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004) give a detailed account of the pragma-dialectical testing procedure. Garssen (1997) presents an exploration of possible subtypes and variants based on a comparison of the pragma-dialectical typology and other prominent typologies of argument types. Van Eemeren and Garssen (2014) explain the pragma-dialectical view of analogy argumentation and its role in prototypical argumentative patterns in political argumentation. Van Eemeren (2018: 45–49) provides an update of the pragma-dialectical treatment of argument schemes.
- 3.
Instead of an informal justification, an informal refutation can also be offered. For the sake of brevity, we will refrain from adding this all the time.
- 4.
See Garssen (2001) for an overview of other kinds of classifications of argument schemes.
- 5.
This is probably the same grounding in “native analytic categories” as Doury (2018) speaks of. This pragmatic basis, which is similar to that of the “ortho-language” of the logical propaedeutic of Kamlah and Lorenzen (1984), manifests itself in the various expressions by which the argument schemes are indicated in ordinary language (van Eemeren & Kruiger, 1987).
- 6.
Unlike in other subtypes of causal argumentation, the bridging premise relates in the case of pragmatic argumentation, due to the complex nature of this subtype, only indirectly to the basic critical question of causal argumentation: the causal relation at issue in the basic critical question is in pragmatic argumentation presumed. In evaluating the use of pragmatic argumentation, just as in evaluating the use of other subtypes of causal argumentation, the basic critical question is to be answered first before it makes sense to turn to the critical questions specifically relating to this particular subtype.
- 7.
Although the general pragmatic principle on which the argument schemes are based remains the same for all subtypes belonging to a certain category of argument schemes, for some subtypes the basic critical question needs to be reformulated in a slightly different way. A case in point is the subtype of symptomatic argumentation based on evaluative criteria, in which a value judgment is defended by pointing at certain characteristics. The basic critical question, “Is what is claimed in the standpoint a sign of what is stated in the reason advanced?”, should then be reformulated as “Is the judgment given in the standpoint implied by the characteristic mentioned in the argument?”. The argumentation in “This book is wonderful because it presents a vivid picture of the miseries op growing up” is to be questioned by “Are books that present a vivid picture of something wonderful?”.
- 8.
In the different kinds of argumentative practices in the various communicative activity types the “extrinsic” constraints on argumentative discourse may be to some extent determined by institutional as well as ideological or “cultural” preconditions or by a mixture of both.
- 9.
When discussing the pragma-dialectical approach to the fallacies, van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1992) already pointed out that, next to establishing general standards and specific criteria to check whether these standards have been complied with, typical manifestations of (sound or fallacious) argumentative moves need to be traced.
References
Doury, M. (2018). Interpreting argumentation. The insider and outsider points of view. In Keynote speech at the 9th international conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA) at the University of Amsterdam. Amsterdam, July 4.
Garssen, B. J. (1997). Argumentatieschema’s in pragma-dialectisch perspectief. Een theoretisch en empirisch onderzoek (Doctoral dissertation University of Amsterdam). Dordrecht: ICG printing.
Garssen, B. J. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Kamlah, W., & Lorenzen, P. (1984). Logical propaedeutic. Pre-school of reasonable discourse. (transl. by H. Robinsion of Logische Propädeutik. Vorschule des vernünftigen Redens. 2nd improved and enlarged ed. 1973; 1st ed. 1967). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lumer, C. (2011). Argument schemes. An epistemological approach. In: F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation. Cognition and community: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA). Windsor, ON: University of Windsor, May 18–22 2011. (CD-rom, ISBN 978-0-920233-66-5).
van Eemeren, F. H. (2018). Argumentation theory: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Garssen, B. (2014). Argumentation by analogy in stereotypical argumentative patterns. In H. Jales Ribeiro (Ed.), Systematic approaches to argument by analogy (pp. 41–56). Dordrecht: Springer. Argumentation Library 25.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and Fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1978). Argumentatietheorie [Argumentation theory]. Utrecht: Het Spectrum. Aula-boeken 613.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1983). Argumenteren [Arguing]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Kruiger, T. (1987). Identifying argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 70–81). Dordrecht: Foris.
Wagemans, J. H. M. (2016). Constructing a periodic table of arguments. In P. Bondy & L. Benacquista (Eds.), Argumentation, objectivity, and bias. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) (pp. 1–12). Windsor, CA: OSSA, May 18–21, 2016.
Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (2020). Argument Schemes: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Approach. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild. Argumentation Library, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28367-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28366-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28367-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)