Abstract
This article aims tt providing some conceptual tools for dealing adequately with relevance in argumentative discourse. For this purpose, argumentative relevance is defined as a functional interactional relation between certain elements in the discourse. In addition to the distinction between interpretive and evaluative relevance that can be traced in the literature, analytic relevance is introduced as an intermediary concept. In order to classify the various problems of relevance arising in interpreting, analyzing and evaluating argumentative discourse, a taxonomy is proposed in which the concept of relevance is differentiated along three co-ordinate dimensions: object, domain and aspect. With the help of this taxonomy, it can be shown that the problems of evaluative relevance with which the standard approach to fallacies cannot satisfactory deal can be more systematically approached within a pragma-dialectical framework. This is demonstrated for the argumentum and hominem, which is erroneously treated as a homogenous type of relevance fallacy in logico-centric analyses, so that cases where this is not justified must be treated as ad hoc exceptions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barth, E.M. and E.C.W. Krabbe: 1978, ‘Formele dialectiek: ter beslechting van conflicten over geuite meningen’, Spektator. Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek 7, 307–341.
Barth, E.M. and J.L. Martens: 1977, ‘Argumentum and Hominem: From chaos to Formal Dialectic. The Method of Dialogue-Tableaus as a tool in the Theory of Fallacy’, Logique et Analyse, Nouvelle Série 20, 76–96.
Copi, I.M.: 1972, Introduction to Logic, 1st impr. 1953, 4th impr. Macmillan/Collier-Macmillan, New York/London.
Crawshay-Williams, R.: 1957, Methods and Criteria of Reasoning. An Inquiry into the Structure of Controversy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Damer, T.E.: 1987, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 1st impr. 1980, 2nd impr., Wadsworth, Belmont, California.
Dascal, M.: 1977, ‘Conversational Relevance’, Journal of Pragmatics 1, 309–328.
Eemeren, F.H. van: 1986, ‘Dialectical Analysis as a Normative Reconstruction of Argumentative Discourse’, Text 6(1), 1–16.
Eemeren, F.H. van: 1987, ‘For Reason's Sake: Maximal Argumentative Analysis of Discourse’, in F.H. van Eemeren et al. (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Foris, Dordrecht/Providence, 201–216.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed Towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. PDA 1, Foris, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1987a, ‘Het analyseren en beoordelen van betogende teksten’, Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 9(1), 48–66.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1987 b, “Fallacies in pragma-dialectical Perspective”, Argumentation 1, 283–301.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1990, “Relevantie in argumentatieve teksten” Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 12(3), 180–189.
Eemeren, F.H. van and R. Grootendorst: 1992, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J.
Eemeren, F.H. van, R. Grootendorst and T. Kruiger: 1986, Drogredenen. Argumentatileer 2, Wolters-Noordhoff, Groningen.
Govier, T.: 1988, A Practical Study of Argument, 1st impr. 1985, 2nd impr., Wadsworth, Belmont, Cal.
Grice, P.: 1989, Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard Priversity Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Haft-van Rees, M.A.: 1985, ‘Relevantie van uitingen in argumentatieve teksten’, in W.K.B. Koning (ed.), Taalbeheersing in theorie en praktijk, Foris, Dordrecht, pp. 46–54.
Hamblin, C.L.: 1970, Fallacies, Methuen, London.
Iseminger, G.: 1986, ‘Relatedness Logic and Entailment’, Journal of Non-Classical Logic 3(1), 5–23.
Jacobs, S. and S. Jackson: 1983, ‘Speech Acts Structure in Conversation: Rational Aspects of Pragmatic Coherence’, in R.T. Craig and K. Tracy (eds.), Conversational Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy, Sage, Beverly Hills, pp. 47–66.
Johnson, R.H. and J.A. Blair: 1983, Logical Self-defense, 1st impr. 1977, 2nd impr., McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto.
Rescher, N.: 1964, Introduction to Logic, St Martin's Press, New York.
Sanders, R.E.: 1980, ‘Principles of Relevance: A Theory of the Relationship Between Language and Communication’, Communication and Cognition 13(1), 77–95.
Schlesinger, G.N.: 1986, ‘Relevance’, Cheoria 52, 57–67.
Scriven, M.: 1976, Reasoning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson: 1986, Relevance Communication and Cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.
Tracy, K.: 1982, ‘On Getting the Point: Distinguishing “Issues” from “Events”, an Aspect of Conversational Coherence’, Communication Yearbook 5, 279–301.
Walton, D.N.: 1982, Topical Relevance in Argumentation, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Werth, P.: 1981, ‘The Concept of “Relevance” in Conversational Analysis’, in P. Werth (ed.), Conversational and Discourse, Croom Helm, London, pp. 129–155.
Wilson, D. and D. Sperber: 1981, ‘On Grice's Theory of Conversation’, in P. Werth (ed.), Conversation and Discourse, Croom Helm, London, pp. 155–179.
Woods, J. and D. Walton: 1989, Fallacies: Selected Papers 1972–1987, Foris, Dordrecht.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R. Relevance reviewed: The case of argumentum ad hominem. Argumentation 6, 141–159 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154322
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154322