| 书目名称 | Handbook of Argumentation Theory | | 编辑 | Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Jean H. M. Wagem | | 视频video | | | 概述 | Unique overview of the state of the art in argumentation theory.Comprehensive with a full alphabetical and systematic bibliography and indices.provides an excellent introduction to the various approac | | 图书封面 |  | | 描述 | .The Handbook Argumentation Theory provides an up to date survey of the various theoretical contributions to the development of argumentation theory for all scholars interested in argumentation, informal logic and rhetoric. It describes the historical roots of modern argumentation theory that are still an important theoretical background to contemporary approaches. Because of the complexity, diversity and rate of developments in argumentation theory, there is a real need for an overview of the state of the art, the main approaches that can be distinguished and the distinctive features of these approaches. The Handbook covers classical and modern backgrounds to the study of argumentation, the New Rhetoric developed by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, the Toulmin model, formal approaches, informal logic, communication and rhetoric, pragmatic approaches, linguistic approaches and pragma-dialectics. The Handbook is co-authored by Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, Erik C.W. Krabbe, A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij and Jean Wagemans, who are a coherent and prominent writing team whose expertise covers the whole field. The authors are assisted by an international Editorial Bo | | 出版日期 | Living reference work 20200th edition | | doi | https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6883-3 | | isbn_ebook | 978-94-007-6883-3 |
| 1 |
,Argumentation and Artificial Intelligence, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter is devoted to contributions to the field of argumentation as developed in the field of artificial intelligence. In the last two decades, a community has been formed that addresses issues in argumentation theory focusing on methods and problems as studied in artificial intelligence. Much of this work is formal or computational in nature, but often has a relevance that goes beyond artificial intelligence per se. This chapter is an attempt to show this relevance to a wider audience by focusing on key ideas and themes and less on formal and computational detail. The chapter starts with historic roots of the treatment of argumentation in artificial intelligence, by discussing non-monotonic logic, in particular Raymond Reiter’s logic of default reasoning and logic programming, and defeasible reasoning, where especially John Pollock’s multifaceted treatment of argument defeat has shaped how argumentation is handled in artificial intelligence. The chapter continues with what is known in the field as abstract argumentation. In abstract argumentation, the focus of study is on attack between arguments, as an abstract formal relation, an approach proposed and developed by Phan Min
|
| 2 |
,Argumentation Theory, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter contains an introduction into argumentation theory. In Sect. 1.1, the topic of research is introduced. Starting from the meaning of the word “argumentation” in ordinary language, a more technical definition is provided of the term. as it is for research purposes used in argumentation theory. In this definition, argumentation is connected with communication, interaction, accountability, and reasonableness..In Sect. 1.2, the descriptive and the normative dimensions of argumentation theory are distinguished. The various components of the research program that needs to be carried out to combine the descriptive and normative interests are described. Apart from philosophical and theoretical research concentrating on the standards of reasonableness and empirical research, concentrating on the description of argumentative reality, to bring the two dimensions together, analytical research is required, followed by practical research aimed at exploiting the insights gained for improving methodically the analysis, evaluation, and production of argumentative discourse..In Sect. 1.3, some crucial concepts in argumentation theory are discussed: “standpoints,” “unexpressed premises,”
|
| 3 |
,Classical Backgrounds, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter sketches the origin as well as the further development of the disciplines of dialectic, logic, and rhetoric in antiquity. For the beginnings of dialectic and logic, the chapter turns in Sect. . to Zeno’s . technique and Plato’s three forms of dialectic, for those of rhetoric to the Sophists and the educator Isocrates..The chapter discusses Aristotle’s contributions to all three disciplines mentioned. In Sect. . Aristotle’s theory of dialectic is discussed. The fundamental features of the ancient discussion procedure are explained, the construction of argumentation by means of . (argument schemes), and tactical issues concerning debates. Sect. . is devoted to Aristotle’s fallacy theory. The theory of topics of Cicero and Boethius is discussed in Sect. .. Sect. . explains Aristotle’s syllogistic – a precursor of predicate logic. Sect. . deals with Stoic logic – a precursor of propositional logic..Aristotle’s systematic reflections on rhetoric as the art of finding the appropriate means of persuasion are the topic of attention in Sect. .. Sect. . deals with the classical system of rhetoric, which developed after Aristotle’s time. The system is illustrated by going systema
|
| 4 |
,Communication Studies and Rhetoric, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter is devoted to the American tradition of communication studies and rhetoric. In Sect. 8.2, the overview of the state of the art starts with a discussion of the role of argumentation in the debate tradition. Although argumentation theory is not yet part of this tradition, all kinds of concepts that were central in the early textbooks still play an important role in argumentation studies in the United States. This justifies paying attention to some of the pre-theoretical notions introduced in these textbooks..In Sect. 8.3, the starting points for theorizing about argumentation are discussed that later on have been developed in communication studies. The literature concerned is characterized by much reflection on the issues considered to be most crucial to dealing with argumentation: What is argumentation? How does argumentation manifest itself? What is the relation of argumentation to logic, dialectic, and rhetoric? The answers to these questions serve in fact as preambles to the theorizing..Sect. 8.4 concentrates on the first of the two branches that traditionally can be distinguished in communication studies: historical-political analysis, also known as .. Sect. 8.5 pro
|
| 5 |
,Formal Dialectical Approaches, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij, Jean |
|
Abstract
Before embarking on discussions of the various formal dialectical approaches to argumentation, Chapter 6 contains, in Sect. 6.1, a discussion of the nature of formal approaches in general and the ways in which they can be used, followed in Sect. 6.2 by a long exposé about the Erlangen School and its project for the reform of thought and speech needed to make a new start at reasonable dialogue. It is shown how Lorenzen’s dialogical logic (his rules for logical constants) fitted into this program and yielded systems for argumentation that could later (after Hamblin had coined the name) be counted as a brand of formal dialectic. Next, some related – though differently motivated – proposals by Hintikka and by Rescher are briefly discussed in Sects. 6.3 and 6.4..The fundamental norms of formal dialectics, proposed by Barth and Krabbe, are explained in some detail in Sect. 6.5. They form the basis for a plethora of systems that incorporate Lorenzen’s rules for logical constants. Stepping somewhat back in time, the chapter then shifts in Sect. 6.6 to another kind of formal dialectic: one of Hamblin’s original systems. Hamblin’s approach is explained and illustrated by an extensive example
|
| 6 |
,Informal Logic, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
Chapter 7 provides a characterization of the informal logic movement, started in the late 1970s by a group of philosophers in North America. The term . refers to a collection of attempts to develop a method for the analysis and evaluation of natural language arguments that offers an alternative to formal logic..In Sect. . the historical backgrounds of the informal logic movement are sketched. The scholars who played an important role in creating the movement are mentioned, and an overview is provided of the main issues that have been the subject of investigation..In the remaining sections of the chapter, the contributions made by the most prominent informal logicians are discussed. Sect. . gives a description of Johnson and Blair’s RAS criteria for the evaluation of argumentation (relevance, acceptability, sufficiency) and Johnson’s additional dialectical criterion that to make argumentation rationally persuasive, an arguer should deal with objections. In Sect. . Finocchiaro’s historical and empirical approach to arguments is described, concentrating on the characteristics of his method of analysis of the use of arguments in scientific controversies. Sect. . discusses Govier’s view
|
| 7 |
,Linguistic Approaches, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter provides a survey of some prominent semantic and pragmatic approaches to argumentation developed in the French-speaking and Italian-speaking world. Sect. 9.2, presents the main outlines of the theory of “natural logic,” developed by Swiss logician Grize and his colleagues out of dissatisfaction with formal logic. According to Grize, the convincingness of a text may just as much depend on its presentation as on the abstract reasoning patterns underlying it. He therefore proposes to view argumentation as a discursive phenomenon. Arguments are in natural logic studied in a context of situated argumentative discourse, taking account of the syntactic and semantic properties of the language in which they are formulated..In Sect. 9.3, the approach of French linguists Ducrot and Anscombre is discussed. In their theory every form of language use is assumed to have an argumentative aspect. At the sentence level, linguistic predicates are associated with certain sets of argumentative principles called.. Such. authorize in a particular speech community the drawing of certain conclusions. Another important concept in Anscombre and Ducrot’s theory is. (“many-voicedness”). By making
|
| 8 |
,Postclassical Backgrounds, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
In this chapter, a selection is made from the postclassical backgrounds of contemporary argumentation theory, starting with discussions of relevant developments in logic and fallacy theory. In Sect. 3.2, it is shown that there are great differences between the way logicians approach reasoning and argument and the interests of argumentation theorists. Because some developments in logic form nevertheless part of the background of argumentation theory, the discussion of logic in Chap. 2 is in Sect. 3.3 continued with a focus on the crucial concept of “validity.” A number of formal and nonformal concepts of validity are presented..As regards the developments in fallacy theory since Aristotle, special attention is given in to in Section 3.4 the addition of the so-called “ad fallacies” – a category of arguments introduced by John Locke. Ultimately, the developments that have taken place have resulted in what Hamblin (.. London: Methuen, 1970) called “the standard treatment.” Sections 3.5 and 3.6 are devoted to a discussion of this standard treatment, Hamblin’s severe criticism of it, and the reactions which this controversy provoked..The chapter continues with discussions of the contribu
|
| 9 |
,Research in Related Disciplines and Non-Anglophone Areas, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter discusses developments which have taken place, more or less independently, outside the research traditions treated in the earlier chapters. First, attention is paid to research in some disciplines and research programs that connect with argumentation theory and may even have some overlap with it. In Sect. 12.2 critical discourse analysis is discussed, in Sect. 12.3 historical controversy analysis, in Sect. 12.4 persuasion research and related quantitative research projects, and in Sect. 12.5 studies stemming from relevance theory which promote an argumentative turn in cognitive psychology..The next chapters concentrate on developments in argumentation research that have taken place in non-Anglophone parts of the world, in which research results are often published in other languages than English. Concentrating on contributions which have not yet been discussed in other chapters, in Sect. 12.6 an overview of argumentation research in the Nordic countries is given, in Sect. 12.7 of argumentation studies in German-speaking areas, and in Sect. 12.8 of argumentation studies in Dutch-speaking areas. The study of argumentation in French-speaking areas is discussed in Sect. 12
|
| 10 |
,The New Rhetoric, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter discusses the new rhetoric, a theory of argumentation developed by the Belgian philosopher Perelman and his compatriot Olbrechts-Tyteca. Their .titled .: ., first published in French in 1958, is a seminal work in argumentation theory..In Sect. 5.3 the intellectual backgrounds of the authors and in Sect. 5.2 some general characteristics of their theory are described. It is explained how the idea of developing the new rhetoric was born out of dissatisfaction with logical empiricism and which classical and modern sources inspired the authors in developing a logic of value judgments that could deal with argumentation about choices, decisions, and actions without dismissing such argumentation as irrational..In the middle part of the chapter, the rhetorical framework of the theory is expounded, the most important distinctions that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca make are discussed, and an overview is provided of the key notions and concepts of the new rhetoric. In Sect. 5.4 the notions of . and . are explained, the distinction between a . and the . is discussed, and in connection with this distinction, the difference between . and . is also discussed. Then, in Sect. 5.5, atten
|
| 11 |
,The Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
This chapter discusses the pragma-dialectical approach developed in the Netherlands by van Eemeren and Grootendorst between the 1970s and the late 1990s and extended by van Eemeren and Houtlosser at the end of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. After a short expose about the origins and development of the theory in Sect. 10.1and a sketch of the normative pragmatic research carried out in pragma-dialectics in Sect. 10.2, in Sect. 10.3 the meta-theoretical starting points are discussed..In Sect. 10.4 the model for critical discussion is introduced and explained, followed in Sect. 10.5 by a discussion of analysis as reconstruction of argumentative discourse in terms of a critical discussion. In Sect. 10.6 the rules for critical discussion associated with the model are introduced, and in Sect. 10.7 the fallacies that may occur in argumentative discourse are characterized as violations of these rules..The extension of the standard pragma-dialectical theory with the inclusion of strategic maneuvering is introduced in Sect. 10.8. Sect. 10.9 deals with the conventionalization of argumentative discourse in communicative activity types that needs to be taken into ac
|
| 12 |
,Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation, |
Frans H. van Eemeren,Bart Garssen,Erik C. W. Krabbe,A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans,Bart Verheij,Jean |
|
Abstract
In this chapter, Toulmin’s contribution to argumentation theory is discussed. Toulmin presents in his model of argumentation a novel approach to analyzing the way in which claims can be justified in response to challenges. The model replaces the old concepts of “premise” and “conclusion” with the new concepts of “claim,” “data,” “warrant,” “modal qualifier,” “rebuttal,” and “backing.” Because of the impact Toulmin’s ideas about logic and everyday reasoning have had, he can be regarded as one of the founding fathers of modern argumentation theory..In Sect. 4.2, the study ., in which Toulmin expounded his views and explained his model, is introduced. Sect. 4.3 concentrates on the geometrical model of validity that is, according to Toulmin, at the heart of the misunderstandings about formal logic he wants to terminate. The distinction he makes in this endeavor between analytic and substantial arguments is treated in Sect. 4.4. In Sect. 4.5, the difference between field-invariant and field-dependent aspects of argumentative discourse is explained, which is vital to the alternative to the formal approach to analytic arguments offered by Toulmin. In Sect. 4.6 the forms arguments take and
|
|
|
发表于 2025-3-21 16:36:47
