Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses.
[1]
S. Toulmin.
The uses of argument
,
1960
.
[2]
James B. Freeman,et al.
Relevance, warrants, backing, inductive support
,
1992
.
[3]
John Nolt.
Informal Logic: Possible Worlds and Imagination
,
1984
.
[4]
F. H. Eemeren,et al.
Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective
,
1992
.
[5]
Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.
Boekbeoordeling [A. F. Snoeck Henkemans, Analysing Complex Argumentation: The Reconstruction of Multiple and Coordinatively Compound Argumentation in a Critical Discussion (proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam), Amsterdam: SICSAT, 1992]
,
1993
.
[6]
James B. Freeman,et al.
Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments
,
1991
.
[7]
Douglas Walton,et al.
Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory
,
1996
.
[8]
Robert J. Yanal,et al.
Dependent and Independent Reasons
,
1991
.
[9]
F. H. Eemeren,et al.
Speech acts in argumentative discussions
,
1984
.
[10]
Irving M. Copi,et al.
Introduction to Logic
,
1962
.
[11]
Stephen N. Thomas,et al.
Practical Reasoning in Natural Language
,
1981
.
[12]
T. Govier.
A practical study of argument
,
1985
.