Classifying the Patterns of Natural Arguments

The representation and classification of the structure of natural arguments has been one of the most important aspects of Aristotelian and medieval dialectical and rhetorical theories. This traditional approach is represented nowadays in models of argumentation schemes. The purpose of this article is to show how arguments are characterized by a complex combination of two levels of abstraction, namely, semantic relations and types of reasoning, and to provide an effective and comprehensive classification system for this matrix of semantic and quasilogical connections. To this purpose, we propose a dichotomous criterion of classification, transcending both levels of abstraction and representing not what an argument is but how it is understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means criterion, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.

[1]  J. Blair,et al.  The “Logic” of Informal Logic , 2012 .

[2]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argument diagramming in logic, law and artificial intelligence , 2007, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[3]  D. Walton.  Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning , 1995 .

[4]  Van Eemeren.  Crucial concepts in argumentation theory , 2001 .

[5]  Ruth Kempson,et al.  PRESUPPOSITION: A PROBLEM FOR LINGUISTIC THEORY , 1973 .

[6]  John R. Josephson,et al.  Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology , 1994 .

[7]  Jon Elster,et al.  ALCHEMIES OF THE MIND: RATIONALITY AND THE EMOTIONS , 1998 .

[8]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Defeasible Classifications and Inferences from Definitions , 2010 .

[9]  van Jan Albert Laar,et al.  Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground , 2007 .

[10]  S Greenland,et al.  Probability Logic and Probabilistic Induction , 1998, Epidemiology.

[11]  David M. Godden,et al.  Deductivism as an Interpretive Strategy: A Reply to Groarke's Recent Defense of Reconstructive Deductivism , 2005 .

[12]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  What Students’ Arguments Can Tell Us: Using Argumentation Schemes in Science Education , 2013 .

[13]  Yi Song,et al.  Teaching critical questions about argumentation through the revising process: effects of strategy instruction on college students’ argumentative essays , 2013 .

[14]  Alex Lascarides,et al.  Logics of Conversation , 2005, Studies in natural language processing.

[15]  K. Rothman,et al.  Causal Inference , 1988 .

[16]  André Juthe.  Argument by Analogy , 2005 .

[17]  E. Nussbaum,et al.  Argumentation, Dialogue Theory, and Probability Modeling: Alternative Frameworks for Argumentation Research in Education , 2011 .

[18]  R. Duschl.  Science Education in Three-Part Harmony: Balancing Conceptual, Epistemic, and Social Learning Goals , 2008 .

[19]  H. Putnam,et al.  Reasoning and the Logic of Things. The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898. , 1993 .

[20]  Fabrizio Macagno,et al.  Reconstructing Metaphorical Meaning , 2014 .

[21]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argument Diagramming in Logic, Artificial Intelligence, and Law , 2007 .

[22]  Mercè Garcia-Milà,et al.  What Is Meant by Argumentative Competence? An Integrative Review of Methods of Analysis and Assessment in Education , 2013 .

[23]  Fabrizio Macagno.  Analogy and Redefinition , 2014 .

[24]  D. Walton,et al.  Emotive Language in Argumentation , 2014 .

[25]  Manfred Kienpointner.  Alltagslogik : Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern , 1992 .

[26]  Mijung Kim,et al.  Argumentation as a Tool to Understand Complexity of Knowledge Integration , 2012 .

[27]  Chris Reed,et al.  Argumentation Schemes , 2008 .

[28]  Frans H. van Eemeren,et al.  Pondering on Problems of Argumentation, Twenty Essays on Theoretical Issues , 2009, Pondering on Problems of Argumentation.

[29]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Argumentation mining: the detection, classification and structure of arguments in text , 2009, ICAIL.

[30]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Keeping in Touch with Pragma-Dialectics: , 2011 .

[31]  Eddo Rigotti,et al.  Relevance of Context-bound loci to Topical Potential in the Argumentation Stage , 2007 .

[32]  H. J. Ribeiro,et al.  Systematic approaches to argument by analogy , 2014 .

[33]  Ch. Perelman,et al.  The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation , 1971 .

[34]  D. Walton,et al.  Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories , 2009, Philosophy & Rhetoric.

[35]  David Hitchcock,et al.  The pragma-dialectical account of argument schemes , 2011 .

[36]  J. Searle.  Rationality in Action , 2001 .

[37]  F. H. Eemeren,et al.  A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach , 2003 .

[38]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Argumentation mining , 2011, Artificial Intelligence and Law.