Argumentation

, Volume 24, Issue 4, pp 489–512 | Cite as

Comparing the Argumentum Model of Topics to Other Contemporary Approaches to Argument Schemes: The Procedural and Material Components

Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT’s denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective of pragma-dialectics in its extended version, reconciling dialectic and rhetoric; nevertheless, it also takes into account numerous other contributions to the study of argument schemes. Aiming at a representation of argument schemes able to monitor the inferential cohesion and completeness of arguments, AMT focuses on two components of argument scheme that could be distinguished, readapting pragma-dialectical terms, as procedural and material respectively. The procedural component is based on the semantic-ontological structure, which generates the inferential connection from which the logical form of the argument is derived. The material component integrates into the argument scheme the implicit and explicit premises bound to the contextual common ground (Rigotti 2006). In this paper, the comparison of the AMT to other approaches focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments and not on the typologies of argument schemes and on the principles they are based on, which the authors intend to tackle in a further paper.

Keywords

Argument scheme Topics Loci Material starting point Procedural starting point Semantic analysis Argumentum Model of Topics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the two reviewers for their important remarks and are particularly grateful to Frans van Eemeren for his precious comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Bach, E. 1981. On time, tense and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In Radical pragmatics, ed. P. Cole, 63–81. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, E.M., and E.C.W. Krabbe. 1982. From axiom to dialogue. A philosophical study of logics and argumentation. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Bochenski, I.M. (ed.). 1947. Petri Hispani Summulae logicales. Torino: Marietti.Google Scholar
  4. Braet, A.C. 2004. The oldest typology of argumentation schemes. Argumentation 18(1): 127–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braet, A.C. 2005. The common topic in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Precursor of the argumentation scheme. Argumentation 19(1): 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christopher Guerra, S. 2008. Themen, Thesen und Argumente zur Position des Italienischen in der viersprachigen Schweiz. Studies in Communication Sciences 8(1): 135–159.Google Scholar
  7. Danesi, M., and A. Rocci. 2009. Global linguistics: An introduction. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. De Pater, W.A. 1965. Les topiques d’Aristote et la dialectique platonicienne. Thomasstudien 19. Fribourg: Paulusverlag.Google Scholar
  9. Epstein, R.L. 2001. Predicate logic. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  10. Filimon, I.A. 2009. Kyosei—an example of cultural keyword argumentatively exploited in corporate reporting discourse. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2): 131–152.Google Scholar
  11. Garssen, B. 2001. Argument schemes. In Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 81–99. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
  12. Garssen, B. 2009. Comparing the incomparable: Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on problems of argumentation, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 133–140. Springer: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gatti, M.C. 2000. La negazione fra semantica e pragmatica. Milano: ISU.Google Scholar
  14. Greco Morasso, S. 2009. Argumentative and other communicative strategies of the mediation practice, PhD dissertation, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, CH.Google Scholar
  15. Green-Pedersen, N.J. 1984. The tradition of topics in the middle ages. The commentaries on Aristotle’s and Boethius’ topics. München, Wien: Philosophia Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Haack, S. 1978. Philosophy of logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hamblin, C. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  18. Hastings, A.C. 1962. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. PhD dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  19. Hughes, G.E., and M.J. Cresswell. 1996. A new introduction to modal logic. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kienpointner, M. 1992. Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart, Bad Cannstatt: Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
  23. Kienpointner, M. 1997. On the art of finding arguments: What ancient and modern masters of invention have to tell us about the ‘Ars inveniendi’. Argumentation 11(2): 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klima, G. 2002. English translation of I. Buridani Summulae de dialectica. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Layman, C.S. 2002. The power of logic, 2nd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Palmieri, R. 2009. Regaining trust through argumentation in the context of the current financial-economic crisis. Studies in Communication Sciences 9(2): 59–78.Google Scholar
  27. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. Traité de l’argumentation: La nouvelle rhétorique, 5th ed. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  28. Reinhardt, T. 2003. Marcus Tullius Cicero, Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Rigotti, E. 2006. Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation 20(4): 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rigotti, E., and S. Greco Morasso. 2006. Topics: the argument generator. In Argumentation for financial communication, Argumentum eLearning module, www.argumentum.ch.
  31. Rigotti, E., and A. Rocci. 2006. Towards a definition of communication context. Foundations of an interdisciplinary approach to communication. In The Communication sciences as a multidisciplinary enterprise, ed. M. Colombetti, 155–180. Studies in Communication Sciences 6 (2), Anniversary issue.Google Scholar
  32. Rigotti, E. 2008. ‘Locus a causa finali’. In Proceedings of the IADA Workshop Word meaning in argumentative dialogue. Homage to Sorin Stati, ed. G. Gobber, S. Cantarini, S. Cigada, M. C. Gatti and S. Gilardoni. Special issue of L’analisi linguistica e letteraria XVI 2: 559–576.Google Scholar
  33. Rigotti, E. 2009. Whether and how classical topics can be revived in the contemporary theory of argumentation. In Pondering on problems of argumentation, eds. F. H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, 157–178. Op. cit.Google Scholar
  34. Rigotti, E., and S. Greco Morasso. 2009. Argumentation as object of interest and as social and cultural resource. In Argumentation and education: Theoretical foundations and practices, ed. A.N. Perret-Clermont, and N. Müller-Mirza, 9–66. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rigotti, E., and A. Rocci. 2001. Sens–non-sens–contresens. Tentative d’une définition explicative. Studies in Communication Sciences 1(2): 45–80.Google Scholar
  36. Rocci, A. 2006. Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication. Intercultural Pragmatics 3(4): 409–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rocci, A. 2008. Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. Argumentation 22(2): 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ross, W.D. (ed.). 1958. Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. N.Y.: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tardini, S. 1997. L’entimema nella struttura logica del linguaggio. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria 2: 419–440.Google Scholar
  41. Toulmin, S. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Toulmin, S., R. Rieke, and A. Janik. 1984. An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  43. Van Eemeren, F.H., and B. Garssen. 2009. Problems of argumentation: An introduction. In Pondering on problems of argumentation. Twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen, xi–xxi. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dodrecht, NL, Cinnamon, USA: Foris.Google Scholar
  45. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale (NJ) etc.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  46. Van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Van Eemeren, F.H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic manoeuvring with the burden of proof. In Advances in Pragma-dialectics, ed. F.H. van Eemeren, 13–28. Amsterdam, Newport News, VA): Sic Sat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  48. Van Eemeren, F. H. van, and R. Grootendorst. 1999. The fallacies of composition and division. In J.F.A.K.: Essays dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday [CD-ROM], ed. J. Gerbrandy, M. Marx, M. de Rijke, and Y. Venema. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. A recent revised version has been published in: van Eemeren, F. H., and B. Garssen. 2009. The fallacies of composition and division revisited. Cogency 1(1): 23–42.Google Scholar
  49. Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck-Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation: Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  50. Van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, and A.F. Snoeck-Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vendler, Z. 1957. Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review LXVI: 143–160.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D. 2005. How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. In Argumentation in dialogic interaction, eds. M. Dascal, F. H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Stati, and A. Rocci. Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences: 51–74.Google Scholar
  53. Walton, D. 2006. Poisoning the well. Argumentation 20(3): 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Walton, D., and F. Macagno. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and Rhetoric 42(2): 154–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walton, D., C. Reed, and F. Macagno. 2008. Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Whately, R. 1946/1963. Elements of rhetoric, ed. D. Ehninger. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Whorf, C. (1997) [1956]. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf, ed. J. B. Carrol. Cambridge: Technology Press of MIT.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Linguistics and SemioticsUniversity of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute of Psychology and EducationUniversity of NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations