Synthese

, Volume 145, Issue 3, pp 339–370 | Cite as

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

Article

Abstract

The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably well for weak arguments, a class of arguments that has always been difficult to analyze without the principle of charity producing a straw man.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burke, Michael 1985‘Unstated Premises’Informal Logic7107118Google Scholar
  2. Burnyeat, F. Myles 1994

    ‘Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion’

    David J., Furley.Alexander, Nehemas. eds. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays.Princeton University PressPrinceton355
    Google Scholar
  3. Carberry, Sandra. 1990Plan Recognition in Natural Language DialogueMIT PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Copi, Irving M. 1986Introduction to Logic7MacmillanNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Ennis, Robert H. 1982‘Identifying Implicit Assumptions’Synthese516186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ennis Robert H. ‘Argument Appraisal Strategy: A Comprehensive Approach’, Informal Logic 21(2): 97–140Google Scholar
  7. Farrell, Thomas B. 2000

    ‘Aristotle’s Enthymeme as Tacit Reference’

    Alan G., Gross.Arthur E., Walzer. eds. Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric.University PressCarbondale, IL93106
    Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, James B. 1995

    ‘The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge’

    Hans V., Hansen.Robert C., Pinto. eds. Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings.The Pennsylvania State University PressUniversity Park, PA263273
    Google Scholar
  9. Garssen, Bart. 2001

    ‘Argumentation Schemes’

    Fransvan, Eemeren eds. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation TheoryAmsterdam University PressAmsterdam8199
    Google Scholar
  10. Gerritsen, Susanne. 2001

    ‘Unexpressed Premises’

    Frans van, Eemeren. eds. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory.Amsterdam University PressAmsterdam5179
    Google Scholar
  11. Gilbert, Michael. 1991‘The Enthymeme Buster’Informal Logic13159166Google Scholar
  12. Gough, James., Christopher, Tindale. 1985‘Hidden or Missing Premises’Informal Logic799106Google Scholar
  13. Govier, Trudy. 1992A Practical Study of Argument3WadsworthBelmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Groarke, Leo. 1999‘Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics’Argumentation13116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Groarke Leo. (2001). ‘Argumentation Schemes in Pedagogy and AI’, in Proceedings of the OSSA’2001 Conference on Argument and its Applications, Windsor, OntarioGoogle Scholar
  16. Hastings Arthur C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, PhD Dissertation. Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1979‘Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model’Erkenntnis38355368Google Scholar
  18. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1992‘The Interrogative Model of Inquiry as a General Theory of Argumentation’Communication and Cognition25221242Google Scholar
  19. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1993‘Socratic Questioning, Logic and Rhetoric’Revue Internationale de Philosophie1530Google Scholar
  20. Hintikka, Jaakko. 1995‘The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry’Dialectica49229249MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Hitchcock David. ‘Deduction, Induction, and Conduction’. Informal Logic Newsletter iii(2): 7–15Google Scholar
  22. Hitchcock, David. 1985‘Enthymematic Arguments’Informal Logi.78397Google Scholar
  23. Hurley, Patrick J. 2000A Concise Introduction to LogicWadsworthBelmont, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Jackson, Sally., Scott, Jacobs. 1980‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’Quarterly Journal of Speech66251165Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, Ralph H. 2000Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of ArgumentErlbaumMahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  26. Josephson, John R., Susan G., Josephson. 1994Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, TechnologyCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kienpointner, Manfr,  et al. 1987

    ‘Towards a Typology of Argument Schemes’

    Frans H., Eemeren. eds. Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline.ForisDordrecht275287
    Google Scholar
  28. Kienpointner, Manfr eds. 1992Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von ArgumentationsmusternFromman-HolzboogStuttgartGoogle Scholar
  29. Kneale, Willam., Martha, Kneale. 1962The Development of LogicClarendon PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenat Douglas. (1995). ‘Cyc: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure’. Communications of the ACM 38(11)Google Scholar
  31. Mann William., Sandra Thompson. (1987). ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’, Text 8Google Scholar
  32. Peirce Charles S. (1965). in Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, Vol. II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  33. Perelman, Chaim., Lucie, Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969The New RhetoricUniversity of Notre Dame PressNotre Dame, INGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinto, Robert C., Anthony, Blair J., Katharine E., Parr. 1993Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian StudentsScarboroughOntario, Prentice Hall, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  35. Prakken, Henry: (2002). ‘Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: A Case Study’, in T.J.M. Bench-Capon, A Daskalopulu and R. Winkels (eds.). Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 93–102Google Scholar
  36. Reed Chris. (1998). ‘Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication’. In: Demazeau Y. (ed). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, IEEE Press, pp. 246–253Google Scholar
  37. Reed Chris., Glenn Rowe. (2001). ‘Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML’, Technical Report. Department of Applied Computing, University of DundeeGoogle Scholar
  38. Reiter, Raymond. 1980‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’Artificial Intelligence1381132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scriven, Michael. 1976ReasoningMcGraw-HillNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Snoeck, Henkemans., Francisca, A. 2001

    ‘Argumentation Structures’

    Frans H., Eemeren. eds. Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory.Amsterdam University PressAmsterdam101134
    Google Scholar
  41. van, Eemeren., Frans, H., Rob, Grootendorst. 1992Argumentation, Communication and FallaciesErlbaumHillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  42. Verheij Bart. (1996). ‘Rules, Reasons and Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat’, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maastricht.Google Scholar
  43. Verheij, Bart: (1999). ‘Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers’, The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, NY, pp 43–52. Available on bart.verheij@metajur.unimaas.nl, http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/∼bart/.Google Scholar
  44. Walton, Douglas. 1996Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive ReasoningErlbaumMahwah, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. Walton, Douglas. 1997Appeal to Expert OpinionPenn State PressUniversity Park, PAGoogle Scholar
  46. Walton, Douglas. 2001‘Enthymemes, Common Knowledge and Plausible Inference’Philosophy and Rhetoric.3493112Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Applied ComputingUniversity of Dundee ParkWyndDundeeU.K.
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of WinnipegManitobaCanada

Personalised recommendations