Abstract
Argumentation is always a defense of a point of view:
-
(a)
Mother:
“I don’t think five pounds pocket money is at all necessary; your sister always got two pounds a week.”
Daughter:
“That was years ago, and Betty, Monica, and all my other girlfriends get five or six pounds.”
-
(b)
History teacher:
“Funny that you don’t want members of the National front working for the police, you were, after all, against the German Berufsverbote at the time?”
English teacher:
“Yes, but at the time it wasn’t about people who are fundamentally undemocratic which is certainly the case with the National Front.”
-
(c)
Policeman:
“Will you put these tables and chairs back where they belong immediately?”
Publican:
“Why can’t I put tables and chairs outside? Across the street they put everything outside and you don’t pick on them.”
Policeman:
“Well, Sir, they pay council rates for doing so, and you don’t!”
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.
With this the typology is embedded in the framework of a dialectical argumentation theory in which the quality of the argumentation is measured against the contribution made towards the solution of a difference of opinion with a critical antagonist. See van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984).
- 2.
- 3.
For a simple explanation of this view of the assessment of argumentation, see van Eemeren et al. (1984b, 137–142). The validity of the arguments used and the acceptability of the argumentative statements made are also discussed, including embedding simple argumentation in a more complicated whole.
- 4.
See van Eemeren et al. (1984b, 137–141). The exact merits of this approach to a typology and the ratio of the various questions are not gone into further here.
- 5.
- 6.
There is also a possible point of view in which the argumentation schemes are seen as major types of argumentation and the various argumentation types which we take here to mean sub-types as sub-sub-types, but we however see no practical improvement in this.
- 7.
For such expressions see any thesaurus.
- 8.
Here we are concerned with a statement made by Toulmin (1969) when the term “warrant” (to distinguish it from data) was used. The manner in which unexpressed arguments ought to be precisely and explicitly explained we do not concern ourselves here.
References
Hastings, A. C. (1962). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ph. Diss. Northwester University Press.
Perelman, Ch., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984a). The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington Publishers.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Kruiger, T. (1984b). Argumenteren. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff. (English translation forthcoming.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Eemeren, F.H., Kruiger, T. (2015). Identifying Argumentation Schemes. In: Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse. Argumentation Library, vol 27. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_37
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20955-5_37
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-20954-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-20955-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)