Wyniki wyszukiwania - Biblioteka Nauki

1

Being Reasonable

100%

Botting D.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

|

2015

|

tom 42

|

nr 1

17-36

EN

Where do the rules of critical discussion get their normative force? What kinds of norms are involved? Unreasonable behaviour in the critical discussion - e.g., continuing to assert the contradictory of a proven standpoint, performing some action pragmatically inconsistent with a proven standpoint, or the same with regard to the starting-points agreed to in the opening stage - is liable to moral sanction. Thus, a moral/ethical norm is involved and the rules must have a moral force. Pragma-dialectics as it stands does not seem to account for this moral force. I will attempt to fill this gap in pragma-dialectical theory.

2

Ad hominem and false analogy abuses in a Romanian intellectual debate

100%

Pănoiu V.-M.

ARGUMENT: Biannual Philosophical Journal

|

2022

|

tom 12

|

nr 1

59-74

EN

A pragma-dialectical inside view of a Romanian intellectual debate is meant to unveil strategic maneuvering and fallacies, in a public sphere said to be dominated by “status groups”, “backstage maneuvers” and “conspiracy”. A book written by a Romanian author sparked off an area of disagreement leading to ad hominem attacks and false analogies ranging from postcommunist issues to political correctness.

3

Preface: From Pragmatics and Dialectics to Argument Studies

100%

Budzynska K. , Eemeren F. H. v. , Koszowy M.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

|

2014

|

tom 36

|

nr 1

7-22

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.

4

Strategic Manoeuvring and the Selection of Starting Points in the Pragma-Dialectical Framework

100%

Forgács G.

Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric

|

2014

|

tom 36

|

nr 1

241-249

EN

The article analyzes strategic manoeuvring within the pragmadialectical framework with respect to the selection of starting points in the opening stage to frame the arguments. The Terri Schiavo case is presented, which can provide interesting insights concerning this issue. I would like to show that resolution of the difference of opinion requires the resolution of a subordinate difference of opinion concerning how to label her medical state, and why discussants were not able to resolve this subordinate difference of opinion. After, the conflict that arises between critical reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness is examined and how strategic manoeuvring aims to resolve this conflict. In the final part of the paper I argue that the problems raised can be dealt with within the framework of pragma-dialectics.

5

A Critical Discussion Game for Prohibiting Fallacies

86%

Visser J. , Budzynska K. , Reed C.

Logic and Logical Philosophy

|

2018

|

tom 27

|

nr 4 Special Issue on Logic, Cognition, Argumentation. Guest Editors: Mariusz Urbański, Michiel van Lambalgen and Marcin Koszowy

491-515

EN

The study of fallacies is at the heart of argumentation studies. In response to Hamblin’s devastating critique of the state of the theory of fallacies in 1970, both formal dialectical and informal approaches to fallacies developed. In the current paper, we focus on an influential informal approach to fallacies, part of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Central to the pragma-dialectical method for analysing and evaluating argumentative discourse is the ideal model of a critical discussion. In this discussion model, a dialectical perspective on argumentation is combined with a pragmatic take on communicative interaction. By formalising and computationally implementing the model of a critical discussion, we take a first step in the development of software to computationally model argumentative dialogue in which fallacies are prohibited along the pragmadialectical norms. We do this by defining the Critical Discussion Game, a formal dialogue game based on the pragma-dialectical discussion model, executable on an online user-interface which is part of a larger infrastructure of argumentation software.

6

Argumentationsindikatoren in deutschen, polnischen und englischen Interviews. Versuch einer vergleichenden Analyse nach der pragma-dialektischen Typologie der Argumentationsschemata

72%

Buć B.

Germanica Wratislaviensia

|

2018

|

tom 143

119 - 133

DE

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.

EN

To 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.