Abstract
We develop conceptions of arguments and of argument types that will, by serving as the basis for developing a natural classification of arguments, benefit work in artificial intelligence. Focusing only on arguments construed as the semantic entities that are the outcome of processes of reasoning, we outline and clarify our view that an argument is a proposition that represents a fact as both conveying some other fact and as doing so wholly. Further, we outline our view that, with respect to arguments that are propositions, (roughly) two arguments are of the same type if and only if they represent the same relation of conveyance and do so in the same way. We then argue for our conceptions of arguments and argument types, and compare them to alternative positions. We also illustrate the need for, and some of the strengths of, our approach to classifying arguments through an examination of aspects of two prominent and recent attempts to classify arguments using argumentation schemes, namely those of M. Kienpointner and D. Walton. Finally, we clarify how our conception of arguments and of argument types can assist in developing an exhaustive classification of arguments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Bosanquet, B.: 1888, Logic or The Morphology of Knowledge, Vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Copi, I. M. and C. Cohen: 1990, Introduction to Logic, 8th edition, Macmillan, New York.
Dung, P. M.: 1995, ‘On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-person Games’ Artificial Intelligence 77, 321–357.
Freeman, J. B.: 1991, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments: A Theory of Argument Structure, Foris Publications, New York.
Gilbert, M.: 1979, How to Win An Argument, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Harman, G.: 1986, Change in View, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hastings, A.: 1963, A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Hitchcock, D.: 2003, ‘Toulmin's Warrants’ in F. H. Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 485–490, Sicsat, Amsterdam.
Kienpointner, M.: 1986, ‘Towards a Typology of Argument Schemes’ in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Across the Lines of Discipline, Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986, pp. 275–287, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Kienpointner, M.: 1992, ‘How to Classify Arguments’ in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation Illuminated, pp. 178–188, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Lumer, C.: 1991, ‘Structure and Function of Argumentations. An Epistemological Approach to Determining Criteria for the Validity and Adequacy of Argumentations,” in F. H. Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. A. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation 1990, pp. 98–107. Sicsat, Amsterdam.
Mellor, D. H.: 1974, ‘In Defence of Dispositions’ Philosophical Review 83, 157–181.
O'keefe, D. J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Argument’ The Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128.
Perelman, C. and L. Oblrechts-Tyteca: 1969, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation (2nd ed.), trans. J. Wilkinson and P. Weaver, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
Railton, P.: 1996, ‘Subject-ive and Objective’ in B. Hooker (ed.), Truth in Ethics, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford.
Reed, C. A. and T. J. Norman: 2003, Argument Machines, Kluwer, forthcoming.
Toulmin, S.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Walton, D.: 1990, ‘What is Reasoning? What is Argument?’ Journal of Philosophy 87, 399–419.
Walton, D.: 1996, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Mahwah, NJ.
Walton, D.: 1996a, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Walton, D. and C. A. Reed: 2002, ‘Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions’ in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Argumentation (ISSA'2002), Amsterdam.
Wreen, M. J.: 1998, ‘A Few Remarks on the Individuation of Arguments’ in F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair and C. Willard (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Coference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, pp. 883–888, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam.
Wright, C.: 1996, ‘Truth in Ethics’ in B. Hooker (ed.), Truth in Ethics, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katzav, J., Reed, C.A. On Argumentation Schemes and the Natural Classification of Arguments. Argumentation 18, 239–259 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000024044.34360.82
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:ARGU.0000024044.34360.82