Walton on Argument Structure
نویسندگان
چکیده
In previous work I argued against (i) the likelihood of finding a theoretically sound foundation for the linked/convergent distinction and (ii) the utility of the distinction even if a sound theoretical basis could be found. Here I subject Douglas Walton’s comprehensive discussion of the linked/convergent distinction found in Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory to careful scrutiny and argue that at best Walton’s theory remains incomplete and that attempts to fill out the details will run afoul of at least one of the problems adduced above—i.e., result in either a theoretically unsound distinction or a theoretically sound, but unnecessary distinction. Résumé: resume text © Informal Logic Vol. 27, No. 1 (2007): pp. 5-25.
منابع مشابه
The Effect of Dynamic Assessment of Toulmin Model through Teacher- and Collective-Scaffolding on Argument Structure and Argumentative Writing Achievement of Iranian EFL Learners
Considering the paramount importance of writing logical arguments for college students, this study investigated the effect of dynamic assessment (DA) of Toulmin model through teacher- and collective-scaffolding on argument structure and overall quality of argumentative essays of Iranian EFL university learners. In so doing, 45 male and female Iranian EFL learners taking part in the study were r...
متن کاملNew Dialectical Rules ForAmbiguity
A set of ten rules is proposed for dealing with problems of ambiguity when interpreting a text of argumentative discourse. The rules are based on Grice's pragmatic rules for a collaborative conversation and on principles and maxims used to deal with ambiguity in interpreting legal and religious writings. The rules are meant to be applied to a given argument used in a given case, and to resolve ...
متن کاملA Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes
Argumentation schemes have been developed in argumentation theory as stereotypical patterns of inference, abstract structures representing the material (semantic) relation and logical relation between the premises and a conclusion in an argument with a corresponding set of critical questions indicating their defeasibility conditions (Walton et al. 2008). They can be regarded as the modern inter...
متن کاملBOOK REVIEW Douglas Walton (1998). The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of
Douglas Walton (1998). The New Dialectic. Conversational Contexts of Argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. x + 304 pages. ISBN 0-80207987-3. Douglas Walton (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. xx + 315 pages. ISBN 0-8173-0922-5. Douglas Walton (1999). One-Sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis Of Bias. State University of New York Press, Albany. ...
متن کاملThe Argument of the Beard
The essence of the argument of the beard (so-called by some logic textbooks) is the tactic used by a respondent to reply to a proponent, "The criterion you used to define a key term in your argument is vague, therefore your use of this term in your argument is illegitimate, and your argument is refuted." This familiar kind of argument tactic is similar to the much more famous heap (sorites) arg...
متن کامل