Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies

• Autorzy: Katarzyna Budzynska , Frans H. van Eemeren , Marcin Koszowy
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Pragmatics and dialectics are two disciplines which have been amongst the first and most important partners for argument studies in the exploration of the complex realm of communication. Treating argumentation as a construct consisting of premises and conclusion allows for investigating some interesting properties of the phenomenon of reasoning, but does not capture a variety of aspects related to the usage of natural language and dialogical context in which real-life argumentation is typically embedded. This special issue explores some of the fascinating research questions which emerge when we move beyond logic into the territory of the pragmatics and dialectics of argument.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

pragmatics; dialectics; argument studies; pragma-dialectics; The Polish School of Argumentation

• Wydawca: Sciendo
• Czasopismo: Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric
• Rocznik: 2014
• Tom: 36
• Numer: 1
• Strony: 7-22

Daty

wydano

2014-03-01

online

2014-04-12

Twórcy

autor

Katarzyna Budzynska

• Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences & University of Dundee

autor

Frans H. van Eemeren

• University of Amsterdam

autor

Marcin Koszowy

• University of Białystok

Bibliografia

• Ajdukiewicz, K. (1974). Pragmatic Logic [trans. O. Wojtasiewicz]. Dordrecht/Bos- ton/Warsaw: D. Reidel Publishing Company & PWN - Polish Scientific Publishers.
• Bocheński, J.M. (1994). Sto zabobonow (One Hundred Superstitions). Krakow: Philed.
• Budzynska, K. (2013). Circularity in Ethotic Structures. Synthese 190(15), 3185-3207 (first published in 2012 under Open Access: DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0135-6).[Crossref]
• Budzynska, K., Araszkiewicz, M., Bogołębska, B., Cap, P., Ciecierski, T., Debow- ska-Kozlowska, K., Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Dziubiński, M., Federowicz, M., Go- molińska, A., Grabowski, A., Hołowka, T., Jochemczyk, Ł., Kacprzak, M., Kawalec, P., Kielar, M., Kisielewicz, A., Koszowy, M., Kublikowski, R., Kulicki, P., Kuzio, A., Lewiński, P., Lichański, J. Z., Malinowski, J., Mar- ciszewski, W., Nieznański, E., Pietrzak, J., Pogonowski, J., Puczyłow- ski, T. A., Rytel, J., Sawicka, A., Selinger, M., Skowron, A., Skulska, J., Smolak, M., Sokoł, M., Sowińska, A., Stalmaszczyk, P., Stawecki, T., Stepa- niuk, J., Strachocka, A., Suchoń,W., Szymanek, K., Tomczyk, J., Trypuz, R., Trzęsicki, K., Urbański, M., Wasilewska-Kamińska, E., Wieczorek, K. A., Witek, M., Wybraniec-Skardowska, U., Yaskorska, O., Załęska, M., Zdanow- ski, K. & Żurek, T. (2014). The Polish School of Argumentation: A Mani- festo. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argu- mentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press).
• Budzynska, K. & Dębowska, K. (2010). Dialogues with conflict resolution: goals and effects. In: P. Łupkowski & M. Purver (Eds.), Aspects of Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. SemDial 2010, 14th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue (pp. 59-66), Poznań: Polish Society for Cognitive Science.
• Budzynska, K. & Witek, M. (2014). Non-inferential aspects of ad hominem and ad baculum. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argumentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press).
• Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The Pragmatics of Symbolic Distance Crossing. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Debowska-Kozlowska, K. (2014). Processing topics from the Beneficial Cognitive Model in partially and over-successful persuasion dialogues. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argumentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press). Dunin-Kęplicz, B., Strachocka, A., Szałas, A., & Verbrugge, R. (2012). A para- consistent approach to speech acts. In Proceedings of ArgMAS 2012 (9th In- ternational Workshop on Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems) (pp. 59-78), Valencia.
• Dunin-Kęplicz, B. & Strachocka, A. (2013). Perceiving rules under incomplete and inconsistent information. Computational Logic in Multi-Agent Systems, Lec- ture Notes in Computer Science, 8143, 256-272.
• Eemeren, F. H. van (2010). Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. Ex- tending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam/Phila- delphia: John Benjamins.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B., Krabbe, E. C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A. F., Verheij, B. & J. H. M. Wagemans (2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. A comprehensive overview of the state of the art. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Garssen, B. & Meuffels, B. (2009). Fallacies and judgments of reasonableness. Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical dis- cussion rules. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech acts in argumentative dis- cussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter.
• Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum.
• Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumen- tation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Grootendorst, R., Jackson, S. & Jacobs, S. (1993). Recon- structing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
• Eemeren, F. H. van, Houtlosser, P. & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumenta- tive indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
• Grabowski, A. (2003). Sonderfallthese - its critique and interpretation. Rechts- theorie, 34, 371-392.
• Griffin, N. (2013). Commentary on M. Koszowy’s “Polish Logical Studies from an Informal Logic Perspective”. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA) 22-26 May 2013 (pp. 1-5), Windsor, ON: OSSA.
• Groarke, L. (2011). Informal logic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (Win- ter 2003 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/.
• Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen. Hitchcock, D. (2006). Informal logic and the concept of argument. In: D. Jacquette (Ed.), Philosophy of Logic (pp. 101-129). Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier. http://link.springer.com/search?facet-author=%22Scott+Jacobs%22
• Hołowka, T. (1998). Błędy, spory, argumenty [Fallacies, disputes, arguments]. Warszawa: Wydział Filozofii i Socjologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.
• Jacobs, S. (1989). Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation, 27, 345-365.
• Jacquette, D. (2006, Ed.). Philosophy of Logic. Handbook of the Philosophy of Science, vol. 5. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
• Jaśkowski, S. (1948). Rachunek zdań dla systemow dedukcyjnych sprzecznych, Stu- dia Societatis Scientiarun Torunesis, Section A, 1(5), 55-77. (English trans- lation: Propositional Calculus for Contradictory Deductive Systems, Studia Logica, 24 (1969), 143-157).
• Jaśkowski, S. (1949). O koniunkcji dyskusyjnej w rachunku zdań dla systemow dedukcyjnych sprzecznych”. Studia Societatis Scientiarum Torunesis, Sec- tion A, 1(8): 171-2. (English translation: On the Discussive Conjunction in the Propositional Calculus for Inconsistent Deductive Systems, Logic and Logical Philosophy, 7 (1999), 57-59.)
• Johnson, R. H. (1987). Argumentation as dialectical. Argumentation, 1, 41-56.
• Kacprzak, M. & Yaskorska, O. (2014). Dialogue protocols for formal fallacies. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argumentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press).
• Kacprzak,M., Dziubiński, M. & Budzynska, K. (in review). Strategies in Dialogues: A game-theoretic approach.
• Kawalec, P. (2003). Structural Reliabilism: Inductive Logic as a Theory of Justifi- cation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Kielar, M. (2011). Transitivity as a marker of valuation in journalistic discourse. In K. Debowska-Kozlowska & K. Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (Eds.), On Words and Sounds: A Selection of Papers from the 40th PLM (pp. 311-322). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Publishing.
• Kisielewicz, A. (2011). Sztuczna inteligencja i logika [Artificial Intelligence and Logic]. Warszawa: WNT.
• Koszowy, M. (2010). Pragmatic logic and the study of argumentation. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 22 (35), 29-45.
• Koszowy, M. (2013). Polish Logical Studies from an Informal Logic Perspective. In D. Mohammed & M. Lewiński (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013 (pp. 1-10), Windsor, ON: OSSA (in press).
• Koszowy, M. & Araszkiewicz, M. (2014). Lvov-Warsaw School as a source of inspi- ration for argumentation theory. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argumentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press).
• Malinowski, J. (2003). Pragmatic interpretation of utterances. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 11, 115-127.
• Małuszyński, J. & Szałas, A. (2013). Partiality and Inconsistency in Agents’ Belief Bases. KES-AMSTA, Frontiers of Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 252, 3-17.
• Marciszewski, W. (1994). Sztuka rozumowania w świetle logiki [The art of dis- cussing from the perspective of logic]. Warszawa: Aleph.
• Moeschler, J. (2001). Speech act theory and the analysis of conversation. Sequenc- ing and interpretation in pragmatic theory. In: D. Vandervecken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in Speech Act Theory (pp. 239-261), Amsterdam, John Ben- jamins.
• Nieznański, E. (2010). Sylogizm prawniczy z logicznego punktu widzenia [Legal syllogism from the point of view of logic]. Edukacja prawnicza, 3, 5-16.
• Peczenik, A. (1988). Legal reasoning as a special case of moral reasoning. Ratio Juris, 1, 123-136.
• H. Prakken (2006). Formal systems for persuasion dialogue. The Knowledge Engi- neering Review, 21, 163-188.
• Puczyłowski, T. (2012). O argumentacji odwołującej się do implikatury kon- wersacyjnej [On argumentation appealing to conversational implicature]. Przegląd Filozoficzny, 3(83), 93-110.
• Reed, C. (2006). Representing Dialogic Argumentation. Knowledge Based Systems, 19(1), 22-31.
• Reed, C.A. & Budzynska, K. (2011). How dialogues create arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1633-1645), Amsterdam: SicSat.
• Rees, M. A. van (2009). Dissociation in argumentative discussions. A pragma- dialectical perspective. Dordrecht etc.: Springer.
• Rytel, J. (2012). Reaching an agreement: Argumentation in preschoolers’ narra- tive discourse. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwerstytetu Kardynała Stefana Wyszyńskiego.
• Selinger, M. (2014). Towards formal representation and evaluation of arguments. In K. Budzynska & M. Koszowy (Eds.), The Polish School of Argumentation, special issue of the journal Argumentation, vol. 3 (in press).
• Simons, P. (2014). Linguistic Complexity and Argumentative Unity: A Lvov- Warsaw School Supplement. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 36(49) (this issue).
• Załęska, M. (2011). Ad hominem in the criticisms of expert argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, B. Garssen, D. Godden & G. Mitchel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th conference on argumentation of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 2047-2057), Amsterdam: SicSat.
• Żurek, T. & Araszkiewicz, M. (2013). Modelling teleological interpretation. In: E. Francesconi & B. Verheij (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 2013) (pp. 160-168), New York: ACM.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/slgr-2014-0014