, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 81–107 | Cite as

Reasoning from Classifications and Definitions



In this paper we analyze the uses and misuses of argumentation schemes from verbal classification, and show how argument from definition supports argumentation based on argument from verbal classification. The inquiry has inevitably included the broader study of the concept of definition. The paper presents the schemes for argument from classification and for argument from definition, and shows how the latter type of argument so typically supports the former. The problem of analyzing arguments based on classification is framed in a structure that reveals the crucial role it plays in the persuasion process. The survey of the literature includes the work of Hastings, Perelman, Kienpointner and Schiappa, but still finds much of value in Aristotle. Lessons drawn from Aristotle’s Topics are shown to be useful for developing new tools for assessing definitions and arguments from definition.


Argumentation schemes Definition Persuasive definition Argument from definition to classification Aristotle Topics 


  1. Aberdein, Andrew. 2000. Persuasive definition. In Argumentation at the Century’s turn, ed. C. W. Tindale, H. V. Hansen and E. Sveda. CD ROM, OSSA (Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation) Proceedings.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1969. Topica. In The works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boethii, Anicii Manlii Severini. 1988. In Ciceronis Topica. Translated, with notes and introduction by Eleanore Stump. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1949. De Inventione, De optimo genere oraturum, Topica (trans: Hubbell, H.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Crowley, Sharon, and Debra Hawhee. 1999. Ancient rhetorics for contemporary students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  6. De Besse, Bruno. 1988. La Définition terminologique. In La Définition, ed. Jacques Chaurand and Francine Mazière. Paris: Actes du Colloque de Définition, 18th and 19th November.Google Scholar
  7. Codevilla, Giovanni. 2003. Military language in the constitutional laws of Soviet Russia. Studies in Communication Sciences 1: 55–76.Google Scholar
  8. Goarke, Leo, and Christopher Tindale. 2004. Good reasoning matters!. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Green-Pedersen, Niels J. 1984. The tradition of topics in the middle age. Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Hallden, Sören. 1960. True love, true humour and true religion: A semantic study. Lund: Gleerlup.Google Scholar
  11. Hastings, Arthur C. 1963. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois: Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  12. Kienpointner, Manfred. 1992. Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart, Germany: Fromman-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  13. Lakoff, George. 1996. Moral politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Mel’cuk, Igor A. 1997. Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale, Collège de France, Chaire internationale, 43 pp.
  15. Molière, Jean-Baptiste. 2000. Don Juan. In Molière. The Miser and other plays, trans: J. Wood and D. Coward. Toronto: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  16. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver). Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  17. Quintilian, Maximus Fabius. 1996. Institutio Oratoria (trans: Butler, H. E.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Rigotti, Eddo. 1997. Lezioni di Linguistica Generale. Milano: CUSL.Google Scholar
  19. Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. Towards a typology of manipulative processes. In New perspectives on manipulative and ideological discourse in pragmatics and discourse analysis. “Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture”, ed. Louis de Saussure and Peter Schulz, 61–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco. 2006. Topics: The argument generator. Argumentum eLearning Module. Disponibile presso (URL consultato il 14 dicembre 2007).
  21. Robinson, Daniel. 1947. The principles of reasoning. New York: D. Appleton – Century Company.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson, Richard. 1950. Definition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rößler, Jürgen L. 1998. Die operationale definition. Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. Schiappa, Edward. 1998. Constructing reality through definitions: The politics of meaning. A lecture presented for the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies of Writing and the Composition, Literacy, and Rhetorical Studies Minor. Speakers Series, 11, 1998, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
  25. Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining reality. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Stebbing, Susan. 1933. A modern introduction to logic. New York: The Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  27. Stevenson, Charles L. 1944. Ethics and language. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. van Rees, Agnes. 2005. Indicators of dissociation. In Argumentation in practice, ed. F. Van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 53–67. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  29. Victorini, C. Marii. 1997. Liber de Definitionibus, mit Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar von Andreas Pronay, Peter Lang, Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  30. Walton, Douglas. 2005. Deceptive arguments containing persuasive language and definitions. Argumentation 19: 159–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Walton, Douglas. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Walton, Douglas. 2008. Arguing from definition to verbal classification: The case of redefining ‘planet’ to exclude pluto. Informal Logic 28(2): 129–154.Google Scholar
  33. Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weaver, Richard. 1953. The ethics of rhetoric. Chicago: Henry Regnery CompanyGoogle Scholar
  35. Windes, Russell and Arthur Hastings. 1965. Argumentation and advocacy. New York: Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  36. Zarefsky, David. 1997. Definitions. In Argument in a time of change, ed. J. Klumpp. Proceeding of the Tenth NCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, Utah, August 1997, National Communication Association, Annandale.Google Scholar
  37. Zarefsky, David. 2006. Strategic maneuvering through persuasive definitions: Implications for dialectic and rhetoric. Argumentation 20: 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuoreMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations