Um die anderen Arten von Veröffentlichungen zu diesem Thema anzuzeigen, folgen Sie diesem Link: Dialectical argumentation.
Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema „Dialectical argumentation“
Geben Sie eine Quelle nach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard und anderen Zitierweisen an
Machen Sie sich mit Top-50 Zeitschriftenartikel für die Forschung zum Thema "Dialectical argumentation" bekannt.
Neben jedem Werk im Literaturverzeichnis ist die Option "Zur Bibliographie hinzufügen" verfügbar. Nutzen Sie sie, wird Ihre bibliographische Angabe des gewählten Werkes nach der nötigen Zitierweise (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver usw.) automatisch gestaltet.
Sie können auch den vollen Text der wissenschaftlichen Publikation im PDF-Format herunterladen und eine Online-Annotation der Arbeit lesen, wenn die relevanten Parameter in den Metadaten verfügbar sind.
Sehen Sie die Zeitschriftenartikel für verschiedene Spezialgebieten durch und erstellen Sie Ihre Bibliographie auf korrekte Weise.
1
Kaldjärv, Merle. „PRAGMA-DIALECTICS ON THE BASIS OF STATE EXAMINATION COMPOSITIONS“. Problems of Education in the 21st Century 38, Nr. 1 (20.12.2011): 37–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.33225/pec/11.38.37.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The present research is based on a study analysing the argumentative skills of Estonian gymnasium students in state examination compositions. The aim of the study is to establish the choices made by students while writing their state exam composition as an argumentative text type. The research considers the implementation of the stages of critical discussion of the pragma-dialectical theory by F. van Eemeren and R. Grootendorst on the basis of one state examination composition (2006, code 356047). In establishing the structure of argumentation in compositions, the macrostructures by T.A. van Dijk were employed as these allow highlighting the macro speech acts expressing more complex speech acts. The stages of critical discussion of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory could be associated with the argumentation practice used in Estonia. The implementation of the pragma-dialectical theory enhances the comprehension process of argumentative texts from the pragmatical and dialectical point of view. Key words: argumentation, dialogue, Estonian language, pragmatics, stages of critical discussion.
2
Blair, J. Anthony, und Ralph H. Johnson. „Argumentation as dialectical“. Argumentation 1, Nr. 1 (1987): 41–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00127118.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
3
van Eemeren, Frans H., und Peter Houtlosser. „The study of argumentation as normative pragmatics“. Pragmatics and Cognition 15, Nr. 1 (11.05.2007): 161–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/pc.15.1.11eem.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In the study of argumentation there is a sharp and ideological separation between dialectical and rhetorical approaches, which needs to be remedied. The authors show how the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation can be instrumental in bridging the gap. By adopting a research programme that involves engaging in ‘normative pragmatics’, not only the critical normative and the empirical descriptive dimensions of the study of argumentation can be brought together, but also the dialectical and the rhetorical perspectives. In the research programme, which includes philosophical, theoretical, analytical, empirical and practical components, dialectical and rhetorical perspectives are articulated in each component. The authors make clear that the two perspectives can be reconciled with the help of the notion of ‘strategic manoeuvring’. Strategic manoeuvring, which is inherent in argumentative discourse, is aimed at reconciling the simultaneous pursuit of dialectical and rhetorical aims.
4
Macagno, Fabrizio. „Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory“. Informal Logic 28, Nr. 2 (05.06.2008): 102. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit argumentative strategies. Showing the different dialectical proposals Walton advanced in several studies on argumentation as a development of a dialogical system, it has proved possible to highlight the fundamental aspects of his theory in a comprehensive model of communication and interaction.
5
STRANIERI, ANDREW, JOHN ZELEZNIKOW und JOHN YEARWOOD. „Argumentation structures that integrate dialectical and non-dialectical reasoning“. Knowledge Engineering Review 16, Nr. 4 (Dezember 2001): 331–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0269888901000248.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Argumentation concepts have been applied to numerous knowledge engineering endeavours in recent years. For example, a variety of logics have been developed to represent argumentation in the context of a dialectical situation such as a dialogue. In contrast to the dialectical approach, argumentation has also been used to structure knowledge. This can be seen as a non-dialectical approach. The Toulmin argument structure has often been used to structure knowledge non-dialectically yet most studies that apply the Toulmin structure do not use the original structure but vary one or more components. Variations to the Toulmin structure can be understood as different ways to integrate a dialectical perspective with a non-dialectical one. Drawing the dialectical/non-dialectical distinction enables the specification of a framework called the generic actual argument model that is expressly non-dialectical. The framework enables the development of knowledge-based systems that integrate a variety of inference procedures, combine information retrieval with reasoning and facilitate automated document drafting. Furthermore, the non-dialectical framework provides the foundation for simple dialectical models. Systems based on our approach have been developed in family law, refugee law, determining eligibility for government legal aid, copyright law and e-tourism.
6
Linqiong, Yan. „A pragma-dialectical approach to governmental crisis communication“. Argumentative Discourse in Contemporary China 6, Nr. 3 (04.12.2017): 315–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.17003.yan.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract To explore an argumentative approach to governmental crisis communication, this research adopts the pragma-dialectical framework to analyze and evaluate a local Chinese government’s crisis discourse concerning disputes over a proposed chemical project. The discourse is collected from the popular local online forum Mengxi Forum. By reconstructing from the discourse the four stages of a critical discussion, analyzing the embedded strategic maneuverings and evaluating the argumentation in view of institutional preconditions, it is shown that in its use of co-ordinative argumentation structures and causal argument schemes, the local government’s crisis discourse is not dialectically reasonable enough to convince the other stakeholders of the necessity to implement the proposed project. The results also shed some light on the necessity for governments’ crisis information management to ensure in its crisis discourse both dialectical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness.
7
Kamariah, Kamariah, Kisyani Laksono und Agusniar Dian Savitri. „Potential Topics as Discourse Shapers Argumentation The Forum Holds a Talk With the Theme of the Covid-19 Pandemic: Pragma-dialectical Studies“. International Journal Of Education, Social Studies, And Management (IJESSM) 3, Nr. 1 (07.02.2023): 28–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.52121/ijessm.v3i1.131.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The purpose of writing this article is to find potential topics with dialectical objectives and potential topics with rhetorical objectives as argumentation makers at each stage of critical discussion at the COVID-19-themed talk forum. The method used is descriptive qualitative with data analysis techniques emphasizing pragma-dialectical studies focusing on argumentative discourse. Data analysis techniques emphasize pragma-dialectical studies focusing on argumentative discourse. The results showed that potential topics with dialectical and rhetorical functions were found at each stage of the argumentation. Each function found has a different role as an argumentative. Potential topics with an analytic function in the confrontation stage are used to explain the issues discussed. The opening stage ensures that disputes exist and are unambiguous. At the argumentation stage, it is used to test the acceptance of a descriptive, evaluative, or prescriptive point of view. The closing stage ensures that everything that has been said is concluded with sufficient evidence. At the same time, the potential topics with a rhetorical function in the confrontation stage are used to ensure that the issues in the discussion degree are helpful. In the opening stage, it is used to select arguments that do not involve the burden of proof. At the argumentation stage, it is used to apply persuasion tools that will make someone win the argument. The closing stage is used to ensure the argument ends.
8
Dudash, Tamara. „Dialectical Approach to Legal Arguing and Legal Argumentation“. Philosophy of law and general theory of law, Nr. 2 (22.12.2021): 145–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.21564/2707-7039.2.242855.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article is devoted to legal argumentation, namely to its research by dialectical approach. The aim of the article is to determine characteristic features of dialectical approach to legal argumentation.
Dialectical approach to the research of legal argumentation should include philosophical, theoretical, empirical components. Philosophical component of legal argumentation research consists in the critical conception of rationality i.e. the philosophical axiomatic idea about rationality of legal argumentation, which is systematically tested within discourse or critical discussion. Dialectical theoretical model of legal argumentation ensures mutual acceptability of legal argumentation by the parties. Dialectical approach deals with legal argumentation mainly in the “context of justification.” Dialectical approach to legal arguing implies specific standard of soundness of the argumentation – acceptability standard. Empirical component of legal argumentation includes reconstruction of argumentation and its weighting (analytic component) as well as analysis of particular legal reasoning (practical component). Dialectical approach highlights hermeneutical nature of legal reasoning.
Dialectical approach to legal argumentation lets us assume some ontological issues concerning legal argumentation. Legal argumentation is considered as the form of rational communication of particular persons to reach mutual acceptability of legally important conclusions within the procedure of discussion. Legal argumentation is the result of such impact embodied in acceptability of legally binding issues within the procedure of rational discussion.
9
Bletsas, Marina. „Paroemiological argumentation in Italian and French journalistic discourse“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11, Nr. 2 (06.10.2022): 180–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21003.ble.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Proverbs are often used in argumentation to convey an epistemic or deontic point of view. While their argumentative potential has not failed to gain the attention of linguists, much remains to be done in terms of analyzing their pragmatic function in single argumentative contexts and languages. With a view to this desideratum, and embracing a contrastive perspective, I pose the question of the argumentative role of proverbs in Italian and French journalistic discourse. In a pragma-dialectical framework, I take the rhetorical perspective to pertain to argumentation as much as the dialectical one and show the potential of proverbs in both spheres. However, I then focus mainly the former perspective, showing how paroemiological argumentation can help mitigate the difference of opinion especially in the case of dissent and facilitate argumentative effectiveness thanks to protagonist-centered and antagonist-oriented strategies involving linguistic polyphony and non-directness.
10
Garssen, Bart. „Une réaction à la critique depuis les marges épistémologiques“. Informal Logic 43, Nr. 4 (21.01.2024): 527–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v43i4.8415.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In this paper, a reaction is presented to Siegel’s claim that the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation ignores or neglects epistemological viewpoints that he finds vital to any normative theory of argumentation. The focus is on the most important problems in Siegel’s argument: 1) the ambiguity of the term ‘argument’ and the alleged negligence of this ambiguity in pragma-dialectics; 2) the critical rational perspective of the pragma-dialectical account; and 3) the alleged negligence of the “abstract propositional sense” of argument in pragma-dialectics.
11
Olayinka Unuabonah, Foluke. „Argumentation in Nigerian investigative public hearings“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9, Nr. 2 (28.10.2020): 199–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19004.ola.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This paper examines defendants’ argumentative discourse in the 2008 Nigerian investigative public hearings on the Federal Capital Territory administration. The data, which consist of nine defendants’ presentations, are analyzed qualitatively, using a combination of the pragma-dialectical and extended pragma-dialectical theories of argumentation. The findings show that the hearing panel initially starts of as the institutional protagonist and defendants as the antagonists, and but later serve as the institutional antagonist and protagonists, respectively. The defendants tend to use analogy and causal argumentation schemes while employing subordinative and complementary coordinative argumentation structures. The defendants also employ different strategic maneuvers at different argumentative stages of the critical discussion. Due to the politico-forensic communicative domain and information-seeking genre of the investigative public hearing discourse, the concluding stage is suspended. Thus, the study shows the influence of communicative activity type on the argumentative activities in a critical discussion.
12
Correia, Vasco. „The Ethics of Argumentation“. Informal Logic 32, Nr. 2 (13.06.2012): 222. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v32i2.3530.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Normative theories of argumentation tend to assume that logical and dialectical rules suffice to ensure the rationality of argumentative discourse. Yet, in everyday debates people use arguments that seem valid in light of such rules but nonetheless biased and tendentious. This article seeks to show that the rationality of argumentation can only be fully promoted if we take into account its ethical dimension. To substantiate this claim, I review some of the empirical evidence indicating that people’s inferential reasoning is systematically affected by a variety of biases and heuristics. Insofar as these cognitive illusions are typically unintentional, it appears that arguers may be biased despite their well-intended efforts to follow the rules of critical argumentation. Nevertheless, I argue that people remain responsible for the rationality of their arguments, given that there are a number of measures that they can (and ought to) take to avoid such distortions. I highlight the importance of argumentational virtues and critical thinking to rational debates, and describe a set of indirect strategies of “argumentative self-control”.
13
van Haaften, Ton. „Strategisch manoeuvreren in plenaire Tweede Kamerdebatten“. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing 42, Nr. 2 (01.07.2020): 111–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.5117/tvt2020.2.002.vanh.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Strategic manoeuvring in plenary debates in the Second Chamber of Dutch ParliamentThe (extended) pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is carried out within specific argumentative activity types. In this paper it is argued that pragma-dialectics offers a fruitful approach to study political debate. The approach and its added value are discussed and illustrated on the basis of a specific type of political debate in a specific argumentative activity type: the plenary debate in the Second Chamber of Dutch Parliament.
14
Drid, Touria. „A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Argumentative Discourse“. Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 19, Nr. 4 (Dezember 2016): 20–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2016.19.4.20.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Theoretical and procedural diverseness is a feature characterising the study of argumentation. The common core in all perspectives is to examine a type of discourse that attempts to convince another party of the acceptability of one’s view(s) through a set of arguments, but what differs, to a larger or lesser extent, is the theoretical apparatus through which discourse is scrutinised. The present paper offers a general account of the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. Expatiating on the principal theoretical and methodological lines on which the theory proceeds, the paper aims at delineating the analytical tools provided in this paradigm to handle the intricacies of argumentative discourse.
15
Longaker, Mark Garrett. „John Locke on Inference and Fallacy, A Re-Appraisal“. Informal Logic 34, Nr. 4 (10.12.2014): 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v34i4.4133.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
John Locke, long associated with the “standard” approach to fallacies and the “logical” approach to valid inference, had both logical and dialectical reasons for favoring certain proofs and denigrating others. While the logical approach to argumentation stands forth in Locke’s philosophical writings (such as the Essay Concerning Human Understanding), a dialectical approach can be found in his contributions to public controversies regarding religion and toleration. Understanding Locke’s dialectical approach to argumentation not only makes his work more relevant to the contemporary discipline of informal logic, but this understanding also prompts a reconsideration of Locke’s rhetorical purpose. He approached argumentation dialectically (and logically) because he wanted to appeal to a universal audience of free rational subjects, people not unlike the real historical audience whom Locke addressed: radical Whigs, latitudinarian Anglicans, early-Enlightenment philosophes.
16
Heyninck, Jesse, Matthias Thimm, Gabriele Kern-Isberner, Tjitze Rienstra und Kenneth Skiba. „Conditional Abstract Dialectical Frameworks“. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 36, Nr. 5 (28.06.2022): 5692–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i5.20511.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract dialectical frameworks (in short, ADFs) are a unifying model of formal argumentation, where argumentative relations between arguments are represented by assigning acceptance conditions to atomic arguments. This idea is generalized by letting acceptance conditions being assigned to complex formulas, resulting in conditional abstract dialectical frameworks (in short, cADFs). We define the semantics of cADFs in terms of a non-truth-functional four-valued logic, and study the semantics in-depth, by showing existence results and proving that all semantics are generalizations of the corresponding semantics for ADFs.
17
Buć, Bartosz. „Argumentationsindikatoren in deutschen, polnischen und englischen Interviews. Versuch einer vergleichenden Analyse nach der pragma-dialektischen Typologie der Argumentationsschemata“. Germanica Wratislaviensia 143 (17.12.2018): 119–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.19195/0435-5865.143.8.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Um Textpassagen in Bezug auf ihre argumentative Funktion zu untersuchen, braucht man geeignete Werkzeuge, die als argumentative Indikatoren verstanden werden können. Ihre Rolle als wirksames Mittel der Argumentationsanalyse wurde in einigen Beiträgen beschrieben. Allerdings ist die Frage, ob sie in verschiedenen Sprachen anwendbar sind, noch nicht beantwortet. Nach der Pragma-Dialektik kann jede Argumentation auf ein bestimmtes Argumentationsschema zurückgeführt werden. Darum kann die Argumentation auf einer Analogie, einem Kausalverhältnis und einem symptomatischen Verhältnis beruhen. Darüber hinaus gibt es typische Argumentationsschemata, die angewendet werden können, um festzustellen, welche Art von Argument verwendet wird. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Arbeit steht die Zusammenstellung von Indikatoren für drei Argumentationsschemata. So wird versucht, auf der Grundlage der Analyse von Interviews zu bestimmen, welche Wörter und Phrasen für die Identifizierung der Art der Argumentation nützlich sein können.Argumentative indicators in German, Polish and English interviews. Attempt of a comparative analysis according to the pragma-dialectical typology of the argumentation schemesTo examine passages of text in terms of its argumentative function one needs appropriate tools understood as argumentative indicators. Their role as an effective means of the argumentation analysis has been described in some contributions. However, the question if they are applicable in different languages, has not been answered yet. According to the pragma-dialectics every argumentation can be attributed to a specific argumentation scheme. Therefore, argumentation can be based on: a relation of analogy, a causal relation and a symptomatic relation. Furthermore, there are typical argumentative models that can be applied in order to determine what type of argument is used. The focus of this paper is to compile indicators of three argumentation schemes. Thus, it is attempted to determine on the basis of the analysis of interviews, which words and phrases can be useful for identifying the type of argumentation.
18
Kharmandar, Mohammad Ali. „Argumentation-based literary translation quality assessment“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5, Nr. 2 (14.10.2016): 139–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.5.2.02kha.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This study correlates argumentation, translation, and literature to construct a new model for assessing the quality of translated literature. Literary translation is described as being compatible with the rhetorical stream of argumentation studies, while the study rests on the overriding notion of ethics of difference in argumentative cross-cultural and translational encounters. The model incorporates ethics of difference and interpretive act, pragma-dialectical contributions of scheme/structure and rhetorical/dialectical situations, and aesthetic features including figures of speech and (sub)genres of literature. Application of the model to an English translation of a classical poem (a Rumi’s allegory) shows that the model can be systematically applied to quality assessment of translated literature (and literary genres e.g. plays, novels, audiovisual/cinematic products, etc.). Considering the implications and suggestions for further research, the study can progressively develop into a literary or cross-linguistic subgenre of argumentation theory, with implications for comparative literature, philosophy of meaning, translation theory, and dialectical hermeneutics.
19
Kostyushkina, Galina M., Natalia A. Sverdlova und Elena P. Mariasova. „The Semiosphere of Argumentation as Speech and Thought Activity“. Polylinguality and Transcultural Practices 20, Nr. 1 (30.03.2022): 168–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2618-897x-2023-20-1-168-178.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The systemic nature of semiosphere organization correlates with the systemic nature of argumentation as human speech and thought activity. Argumentation is a part of semiotic continuum of human speech and thinking, forming complex subsystems of semiosphere. The paper aims at constructing the semiosphere of argumentation by identifying different approaches to its study. The authors conclude that argumentation as a logical-communicative process can be reviewed most clearly when analyzed in terms of S. Toulmin’s classification from logical, dialectical, rhetorical research perspectives. The functions of persuasion and the significance of the addressee are in this case prioritized. The pragma-dialectical approach used by the authors and its integrated nature of studying of argumentation as a speechthought activity, made it possible to transfer from logics and dialectics to cognitive-oriented research. Axioms (12), underlying approaches to the study of argumentation, were analyzed and classified according to the principles of action, practice, and activity, as applied to language, which has a speech-thought-activity character. Argumentation as a component of human thinking semiosphere is the most complex phenomenon given its multidimensional and multisystemic nature.
20
Strukowska, Marta E. „Argumentative indicators in the adjudication of Russia-Ukraine dispute. A pragma-dialectical study“. Scripta Neophilologica Posnaniensia 23 (06.12.2023): 77–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/snp.2023.23.06.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The context of Russia–Ukraine war has given sufficient reasons to consider any standpoint of argumentation significant and potentially groundbreaking in dealing with threat and conflict. This article reports the findings of a pragma–dialectical study of argumentative indicators in the adjudication of a Russia–Ukraine dispute which mark the judgement–based understanding and arguments–infused processes that give solid grounds to establish the strategy of dealing with war. Linguistic choices in the form of argumentative indicators constitute keystones in the critical discussion, allowing the reconstruction and identification of speech act moves that are to be found in the patterned route of argumentation. As this analysis shows, the organisation of FTAs parameters and propositional attitude indicators significantly contribute to the sequentiality and complementariness of the argumentation process which proves to be highly effective and reasonable. Given the specificity of an adjudication as a type of a genre, its judiciary contextualisation, and legislative power, it is suggested that this argumentative practice makes for a threat and risk management strategy.
21
Van Laar, Jan A. „Argument Schemes from the Point of View of Hamblin’s Dialectic“. Informal Logic 31, Nr. 4 (30.11.2011): 344. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i4.3363.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This paper aims at a normative account of non-deductive argumentation schemes in the spirit of Hamblin’s dialectical philosophy. First, three principles are presented that characterize Hamblin’s dialectical stance. Second, argumentation schemes, which have hardly been examined in Hamblin’s book Fallacies, shall be dealt with by applying these principles, taking an argumentation scheme from authority as the leading example. Third, a formal dialectical system, along the lines indicated by Hamblin, shall be developed that includes norms for using argumentation schemes and norms for responding to arguments that are presented as instantiating acceptable argumentation schemes.
22
Atkin, Albert, und John E. Richardson. „Arguing about Muslims: (Un)Reasonable argumentation in letters to the editor“. Text & Talk 27, Nr. 1 (26.01.2007): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.2007.001.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractThis article analyses letters to the editor written on or about Muslims printed in a British broadsheet newspaper. The pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation is applied as a model for explaining and understanding the arguments employed in the sampled letters. Our presentation of pragma-dialectical theory focuses on argumentative reasonableness. More specifically, we introduce the four dialectical stages through which any argument must pass and explain the ten rules of critical discussion that participants must follow throughout if they are to resolve the argument. The article focuses in particular on the letter writers' use of argument schemes—that is, the manner in which these writers use arguments to support their standpoints. We conclude by highlighting the role that unreasonable arguments can play in perpetuating racialized inequalities and hence the importance of analyzing argumentation.
23
Forchtner, Bernhard, und Ana Tominc. „Critique and argumentation“. Journal of Language and Politics 11, Nr. 1 (22.03.2012): 31–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.1.02for.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
At the core of critical discourse analysis lies its emancipatory agenda: arguing for social equality and against discrimination. In the case of the discourse-historical approach (DHA), this stance has been theoretically justified mainly through references to Habermas’ language-philosophy. At the same time, the analysis of actually occurring argumentative speech requires more than a theoretical underpinning of one’s critique and, here, DHA has benefitted from drawing on van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s Pragma-Dialectical argumentation theory. However, Pragma-Dialectics is not just a tool kit but rests on Popper and Albert’s critical rationalism. This results in both epistemological as well as normative conflicts at the paradigm-core of DHA between critical rationalism and Habermas’ critical theory regarding the concept of critique. In this article, we review the different epistemological and normative underpinnings of DHA and Pragma-Dialectics and discuss the consequences of implementing the latter in the former. We conclude by arguing for a coherent orientation towards Habermas’ language-philosophy in order to maintain a high degree of consistency in DHA.
24
Lewiński, Marcin. „Argumentative Polylogues: Beyond Dialectical Understanding of Fallacies“. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36, Nr. 1 (01.03.2014): 193–218. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0010.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Dialectical fallacies are typically defined as breaches of the rules of a regulated discussion between two participants (di-logue). What if discussions become more complex and involve multiple parties with distinct positions to argue for (poly-logues)? Are there distinct argumentation norms of polylogues? If so, can their violations be conceptualized as polylogical fallacies? I will argue for such an approach and analyze two candidates for argumentative breaches of multi-party rationality: false dilemma and collateral straw man.
25
Verheij, Bart. „Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic“. Artificial Intelligence and Law 11, Nr. 2/3 (2003): 167–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:arti.0000046008.49443.36.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
26
Foster, Paul. „Pragma-Dialectical Theory and Paul's Argumentation“. Expository Times 119, Nr. 2 (November 2007): 77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00145246071190020502.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
27
Garssen, Bart. „Strategic maneuvering in European Parliamentary Debate“. Argumentation in political deliberation 2, Nr. 1 (13.05.2013): 33–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.2.1.02gar.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This paper focuses on argumentation the institutional context of debate in the European Parliament. A parliamentary debate is a distinct argumentative activity type. In the pragma-dialectical approach, argumentative activity types are defined as conventionalized argumentative practices in which the possibilities for strategic maneuvering are predetermined. What are the characteristics of the activity type of a debate in European Parliament that predetermine the possibilities for strategic maneuvering?
28
Van Eemeren, Frans H. „Argumentation Theory and Argumentative Practices: A Vital but Complex Relationship“. Informal Logic 37, Nr. 4 (06.12.2017): 322–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v37i4.5002.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
To illustrate the development of argumentation theory, the paper traces the journey of the pragma-dialectical theory as it widened its scope, step by step, from an abstract model of critical discussion to the complexities of actual argumentative discourse. It describes how, having contextualized, empiricalized and formalized their approach, pragma-dialecticians are now putting the theory’s analytical instruments to good use in identifying prototypical argumentative patterns in specific communicative activity types in the various communicative domains. This means that they can now start answering the crucial question about the typical characteristics of their discourse asked by interested lawyers, politicians, academics and other practitioners of argumentation.
29
Alker, Hayward R. „The Dialectical Logic of Thucydides' Melian Dialogue“. American Political Science Review 82, Nr. 3 (September 1988): 805–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962492.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
If the realist tradition has underappreciated the formalizable quality of Thucydides' scientific investigations, neorealist teachers and writers have generally failed to see the normative and dramatical features of Thucydides' political science, each an expression of his dialectical epistemology and ontology. Nicholas Rescher's partial formalization of dialectics as a controversy-oriented approach to knowledge cumulation and Kenneth Burkes dramaturgical approach to textual understanding are both shown to fit Thucydides' argumentation in the Melian dialogue. Thus argumentation produces new knowledge about the inner determinants of Athenian imperialism; simultaneously it dramatically reveals the constituting practical rationale of Athenian actions to be unjust. Once Thucydides' determining essences of power politics are properly uncovered, their false “eternal, mathematical necessity” can be appropriately criticized. A case is thus suggested for a “neoclassical polimetrics” more fundamentally grounded in “political argumentation” about practical choices in particular contexts than in ahistorical laws, inductive statistics or deductive mathematics.
30
Feteris, Eveline T. „Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: Dialectical approaches to legal argumentation“. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 7, Nr. 2 (Juni 1994): 133–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01816603.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
31
Wackers, Dunja Y. M., H. José Plug und Gerard J. Steen. „Violence metaphors for cancer“. Metaphor and the Social World 10, Nr. 1 (01.05.2020): 121–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/msw.19005.wac.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract The use of violence metaphors for cancer has been widely criticised both in academic and non-academic contexts (see Harrington, 2012; Semino et al., 2015). Whereas previous research on violence metaphors for cancer has focused on the use and functions of these metaphors by and for different stakeholder groups, no studies to date have examined the (various) arguments that are raised in public discourse that is critical of said metaphors. Applying concepts from pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (Van Eemeren & Grootendorst, 1992), this paper sets out to analyse types of argumentation occurring in critical public discussions of violence metaphors for cancer. Close argumentative analyses of actual discourse examples will be provided in order to illustrate the differences between two types of argumentation in particular, i.e. pragmatic and symptomatic argumentation.
32
Leal, Fernando. „On philosophical argumentation“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 8, Nr. 2 (25.09.2019): 173–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.19007.lea.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Philosophical argumentation presents a puzzle for pragma-dialectics: both from the perspective of 2500 years of history and from what we can ourselves witness in the present, philosophers seem to be exclusively intent on strengthening and elaborating their differences of opinion. Nothing like that happens in other academic endeavors. This is an anomaly in pragma-dialectical terms because, if philosophical discussants do not want to resolve their differences of opinion, then they would seem to be unreasonable by definition. In other words, no critical discussion would be possible in philosophy because of the peculiar way philosophers argue. The anomaly can, however, be dispelled by using the elementary distinction between single and multiple differences of opinion. It is argued that, in spite of occasional appearances, all philosophical differences of opinion are multiple. From that it is argued that the ‘institutional point’ (van Eemeren, 2010) of philosophy is to create the broadest map of arguable positions. If this is true, then philosophers may after all be pursuing a higher-order kind of consensus, bearing in particular on how many arguments can be marshaled around any given philosophical question.
33
McBurney, P. „Dialectical argumentation for reasoning about chemical carcinogenicity“. Logic Journal of IGPL 9, Nr. 2 (01.03.2001): 175–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/9.2.175.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
34
Hunter, Anthony, und Matthias Thimm. „Optimization of dialectical outcomes in dialogical argumentation“. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 78 (November 2016): 73–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2016.06.014.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
35
Radulović, Milica. „Positive discourse analysis and latent euphemisation“. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Language and Literature 18, Nr. 4 (2021): 893–909. http://dx.doi.org/10.21638/spbu09.2021.416.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article examines some epistemic aspects of latent euphemisation in argumentative discourse. The purpose of the work is to show that, by focusing on the notion of voice which links talk and context, positive discourse analysis (PDA) can serve as a meta-orientation in analysing alternative discourses. The theoretical framework for the analysis is the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation, which discusses methods and tools for improving discussion and reconciling dissensual opinions. According to M.Gerber, some of the potential problems of the pragma-dialectical approach are “ethical deficiencies”, “the risk of amorality” and limitations regarding the method for evaluating arguments in accordance with goals, purposes and consequences. This article argues that the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation can be implemented to identify latent euphemisation as fallacious reasoning. However, the evaluation of language use as latently euphemistic, and consequently, fallacious, is an epistemic judgment that needs to take into account discussants’ epistemic and epistemological boundaries and commitments, including ethical considerations. As communication can lead to miscommunication unless a common epistemological background is shared, latent euphemisation can be seen as a result of inconsistent epistemological positions whose potential motives and consequences need to be addressed.
36
Ferreira, Maria. „A Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Memory Politics: Spanish Contemporary Memory Politics, Populism Studies, and Argumentative Dialectics“. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 15, Nr. 2 (01.12.2021): 130–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/jnmlp-2021-0011.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This paper establishes a dialogue between populism studies, typologies of reconstruction of the past, and argumentative dialectics. The paper analyzes what types of argumentative strategies are employed in the context of the discussions regarding Spanish memory politics and how those strategies can be associated with typologies of re-elaboration of the past (Caramani and Manucci 2019). Building from argumentative dialectics (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004), the paper studies argumentation structures uttered after the endorsement of the 2007 Spanish Historical Memory Law and the proposal of the 2021 Draft Democratic Memory Law. Departing from the distinction between diverse strategies of re-elaboration of the past, namely, heroization and cancellation (Caramani and Manucci 2019), the paper questions if Spanish decision-makers’ rhetorical strategies and political decisions in the field of memory politics disclose the adoption of particular types of populist behavior. The paper claims that the argumentative tactics used, in the domain of memory politics, by Spanish left-wing leaders reveal the adoption of a heroization strategy. In contrast, the rhetoric of Spanish right-wing leaders favors a strategy of cancellation. The paper also claims that, in the Spanish case, mainly from 2018 onwards, the adoption by Spanish left-wing leaders of a heroization strategy had two consequences. First, it did not reduce the cultural opportunity structure for right-wing populism. Second, it fostered a cultural opportunity structure for the affirmation of left-wing populism. The paper selected argumentative dialectics as a methodological framework (Van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004). The paper discusses the scientific significance of analyzing memory politics through the lenses of populism studies.
37
Greco, Sara, Teuta Mehmeti und Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont. „Do adult-children dialogical interactions leave space for a full development of argumentation?“ Journal of Argumentation in Context 6, Nr. 2 (16.10.2017): 193–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.6.2.04gre.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This paper sets out to analyse a case study of adult-children interaction in an educational context from a perspective of argumentation. We select a case in which 3 argumentative discussions are opened and we analyse them with the aim of understanding whether they are fully developed from a point of view of argumentation; or whether they are cut short and why. Our focus is not on the children’s individual productions but on the process of interaction. We assume the pragma-dialectical model of argumentation and the AMT as a theoretical framework. Our findings show that none of the discussions opened gets to a concluding stage, either because the teacher shifts the discussion on a different issue, or because the opening stage is not clear, or because the argumentation stage is not adequately developed. These findings contribute to conceptual clarification about how to interpret the role of a teacher.
38
Ince, Serkan. „The epistemological orientation of Ottoman argumentation theory and its relation to kalām“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 12, Nr. 3 (15.12.2023): 278–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.22021.inc.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories provide strong evidence that the argumentation theory advocated by Ottoman theorists was epistemologically oriented, and has strong parallels with the argumentation theory of kalām (dialectical theology); indeed Ottoman argumentation theory and kalām interacted intensively and influenced each other. This article traces some snapshots of this discourse. In doing so, key concepts of Islamic (Ottoman) argumentation theories are introduced.
39
King, Colin Guthrie. „False ἔvδοα and fallacious argumentation“. History of Philosophy and Logical Analysis 15, Nr. 1 (05.04.2012): 185–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.30965/26664275-01501008.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Aristotle determines eristic argument as argument which either operates upon the basis of acceptable premisses (ἔνδοξα) and merely give the impression of being deductive, or argument which truly is deductive but operates upon the basis of premisses which seem to be acceptable, but are not (or, again, argument which uses both of these mechanisms). I attempt to understand what Aristotle has in mind when he says that someone is deceived into accepting premisses which seem to be acceptable but which are really not, and how this disqualifies such arguments from being dialectical. In the first section of the paper I interpret Aristotle’s notion of ἔνδοξα in terms of a relational concept of acceptability. Real ἔνδοα are propositions which are accepted by a qualified group or individual. False ἔνδοα may also be accepted by someone or some group, and may even be true, but they are used to serve the purposes of eristical argumentation, which departs from certain standards of dialectical argumentation articulated in the notion of ἔνδοξα as a norm for premiss-acceptance. In particular, eristic arguments may even be valid in the sense of a συλλογισμός while still failing to be proper dialectical arguments. In the second part of the paper I consider how this can be, in examining certain types of fallacies in the Sophistical Refutations and the relationship between fallacious argumentation and false ἔνδοξα.
40
Van Haaften, Ton. „Argumentative Strategies and Stylistic Devices“. Informal Logic 39, Nr. 4 (14.12.2019): 301–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v39i4.6037.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The extended pragma-dialectical argumentation theory assumes that people engaged in argumentative discourse manoeuvre strategically. In argumentative reality, the strategic manoeuvring is often carried out according to an argumentative strategy. Language users make an effort to present their strategic manoeuvres in a specific way and the analysis of the stylistic choices in actual argumentative discourse is the most important basis for identification and analysis of argumentative strategies. In this article, it is shown what requirements must be satisfied by a systematic stylistic analysis of argumentative discourse, and the results of such an analysis are illustrated by means of a case study.
41
Pilgram, Roosmaryn, und Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. „A pragma-dialectical perspective on obstacles to shared decision-making“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 7, Nr. 2 (12.10.2018): 161–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.18027.pil.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract Shared medical decision-making has been analyzed as a particular kind of argumentative discussion. In the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory, different types of conditions and rules are formulated for the ideal of a reasonable argumentative discussion. In this paper, we shall first show how making use of the distinctions made in the pragma-dialectical theory between different types of conditions for reasonable discussion can help to give a more systematic account of the obstacles that need to be overcome for shared decision-making to be successful. Next, by referring to the rules for critical discussion, we shall provide a more detailed explanation than can be found in the literature on health communication of why certain types of conduct of the participants in the medical encounter can be analyzed as obstacles to the goal of shared decision-making.
42
Svačinová, Iva. „Three forms of internal negotiation through the activity of private diary-writing“. Journal of Argumentation in Context 11, Nr. 2 (06.10.2022): 243–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jaic.21014.sva.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract This paper is focused on the practice of private diary-writing as an act of externalizing internal communication from the point of view of the theory of argumentation. It is demonstrated that through diary-writing, various forms of internal negotiation can be implemented. The paper sheds light on three ways internal negotiation is externalized through diary writing: reflective diary writing, crisis diary writing and self-encouraging diary writing. It is shown that these communicative practices occur with respect to specific exigencies of a diarist, and with respect to these specific exigencies, they differ in the type of argumentation that can be submitted in the writings. For the argumentative characterization of these practices, the concept of the communicative activity type introduced within a pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation is used. It is shown that distinguished diary-writing practices are differently conventionalized activity types that are preconditioned by implicit norms governing the conduct of argumentation.
43
Moshavi, Adina. „Between Dialectic and Rhetoric: Rhetorical Questions Expressing Premises in Biblical Prose Argumentation“. Vetus Testamentum 65, Nr. 1 (28.01.2015): 136–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685330-12341182.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Rhetorical questions expressing premises are situated at the intersection of two disciplines whose object of study is argumentation: dialectic and rhetoric. This paper examines arguments in biblical prose whose premises take the form of rhetorical questions, utilizing insights from modern dialectical and rhetorical theories of argumentation. The corpus for this study is the prose portions of Genesis-2 Kings. The nearly 130 arguments in the corpus were found to exhibit clear logical structures after undergoing reconstruction, although these structures are not necessarily deductively valid. In this, biblical arguments are typical of argumentation in natural conversation. With a few exceptions, the modes of argumentation can be classified as modus tollens, denying the antecedent, argument by consequences, or inductive reasoning. The rhetorical question plays a significant rhetorical role in these arguments, boosting the persuasive force of a disputed premise or a less-than-compelling logical relation between premises and conclusion.
44
Zarefsky, David H. „Review of Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective“. Informal Logic 40, Nr. 1 (28.02.2020): 139–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v40i1.6159.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
45
Barebina, Natalia, Galina Kostyushkina und Zhiyong Fang. „Vectors of Argumentative Orientation in the Study of Language Aspects Dynamic of Political Media Discourse“. Bulletin of Baikal State University 31, Nr. 1 (31.03.2021): 98–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.17150/2500-2759.2021.31(1).98-102.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article presents an attempt to analyze the argumentative constants and variations in the analytical genre of a political media discourse from the point of view of focusing on the formation of different opinions of the audience. This task is solved by using the concept of strategic maneuvering. This concept contains a theoretical tool that allows you to identify violations of dialectical standards of argumentation in the form of rhetorical goals in the author's reasoning. Using the method of random selection, a corpus of examples was formed as fragments of speeches of political leaders. Examples were taken from the website of the Munich Security Conference 2016-2020. An evaluative-critical analysis of theoretical literature has revealed the main characteristics of the political media discourse. It was found that this social practice presupposes an argumentative way of organizing a discourse. The article states that any forms of the analytical genre of the political media discourse presuppose a certain standard of rationality in terms of its logical presentation and the quality of arguments. Using the method of pragma-dialectical reconstruction of the text, the authors illustrate the rational goal of argumentation realized by the speaker. However, the specificity of the genre inevitably leads to the desire of the addressees to present arguments in their favor. This is manifested in the rhetorical analogue of the logical dimension of the text-reasoning. It is concluded that the norm and violations in argumentation show how the language system functions in the formation of vectors of audience attitude.
46
Garssen, Bart, und Jan Albert Van Laar. „A pragma-dialectical response to objectivist epistemic challenges“. Informal Logic 30, Nr. 2 (20.07.2010): 122. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/il.v30i2.2891.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The epistemologists Biro and Siegel have raised two objections against the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation. According to the first objection the pragma-dialectical theory is not genuinely normative. According to the second objection the rejection of justificationism by pragma-dialecticians is unwarranted: they reject justificationism prematurely and they are not consistent in accepting some arguments (‘justifications’) as sound. The first objection is based on what we regard as the misconception that the goal of resolving differences of opinion cannot provide a normative approach. In response to the second objection we argue that in pragma-dialectics, the notion of argument, and related notions, are defined in a non-justificatory manner.
47
McBurney, Peter, und Simon Parsons. „Risk Agoras: Using Dialectical Argumentation to Debate Risk“. Risk Management 2, Nr. 2 (April 2000): 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240046.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
48
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian. „Second Order Intersubjectivity: The Dialectical Dimension of Argumentation“. Argumentation 24, Nr. 1 (23.04.2009): 85–105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9130-6.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
49
Smolka, Jennifer. „Argumentation in the Interpretation of Statutory Law and International Law: Not Ejusdem Generis“. Languages 7, Nr. 2 (24.05.2022): 132. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/languages7020132.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This contribution bridges three fields—pragmatics, argumentation, and law. Arguments can be seen as the verbal formulation of inferences that articulate justificatory relationships, meaning that behind every argument is at least one argumentative inference. As an argumentative activity and verbal practice, legal discourse has gaps to be filled by pragmatic inference. Neo- and post-Gricean frameworks can thus tentatively be used for its analysis. Based on these frameworks, this contribution asks whether argumentation in the interpretation of statutory law is the same as in international law. More precisely, it looks at judges’ legal interpretations, which function as justifying arguments because they are constrained by rules/canons of interpretation. It is shown that neither a pragma-dialectical hierarchy of statutory canons nor a hierarchy of related presumptions carries over to international law where there is no such hierarchy.
50
Henkemans, A. Francisca Snoeck. „Speech Act Theory and the Study of Argumentation“. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 36, Nr. 1 (01.03.2014): 41–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0002.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Abstract :In this paper, the influence of speech act theory and Grice’s the- ory of conversational implicature on the study of argumentation is discussed. First, the role that pragmatic insights play in van Eemeren and Grootendorst’s pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation and Jackson and Jacobs’ conver- sational approach to argumentation is described. Next, a number of examples of recent work by argumentation scholars is presented in which insights from speech act theory play a prominent role.