Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton's Pragmatic Theory

The notions of types of dialogue and dialectical relevance are central themes in Walton’s work and the grounds for a dialectical approach to many fallacies. After outlining the dialogue models constituting the background of Walton’s account, this article presents the concepts of dialectical relevance and dialogue shifts in their application to biased argumentation, fallacious moves, and illicit argumentative strategies. Showing the different dialectical proposals Walton advanced in several studies on argumentation as a development of a dialogical system, it has proved possible to highlight the fundamental aspects of his theory in a comprehensive model of communication and interaction.

[1]  Douglas Walton,et al.  One-sided arguments : a dialectical analysis of bias , 1999 .

[2]  Frans H. van Eemeren,et al.  Theoretical Construction and Argumentative Reality: An Analytic Model of Critical Discussion and Conventionalised Types of Argumentative Activity , 2005 .

[3]  S. Cigada,et al.  La comunicazione verbale , 2004 .

[4]  S. Cigada,et al.  Sýndesmoi : connettivi nella realtà dei testi , 2006 .

[5]  Douglas Walton.  Character Evidence, An Abductive Theory , 2006, Argumentation Library.

[6]  Pieter A. M. Seuren.  Presupposition, negation and trivalence , 2000, Journal of Linguistics.

[7]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Fundamentals of critical argumentation , 2006, Critical reasoning and argumentation.

[8]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument , 1998 .

[9]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law , 2005 .

[10]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  The Problem Of Retraction In Critical Discussion , 2001, Synthese.

[11]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Examination dialogue: An argumentation framework for critically questioning an expert opinion , 2006 .

[12]  D. Walton,et al.  The Fallaciousness of Threats: Character and Ad Baculum , 2007 .

[13]  D. Walton.  The new dialectic , 1998 .

[14]  P. Anderson.  Scare tactics. , 1996, Community nurse.

[15]  Douglas Walton,et al.  COMMON KNOWLEDGE IN ARGUMENTATION , 2006 .

[16]  D. Walton.  Profiles of Dialogue for Evaluating Arguments from Ignorance , 1999 .

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

[18]  Chris Reed,et al.  Knowing When To Bargain - The roles of negotiation and persuasion in dialogue , 2006, COMMA.

[19]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure? , 2001, Fundam. Informaticae.

[20]  F. V. Eemeren.  A systematic theory of argumentation , 2004 .

[21]  Douglas Walton.  Ad Hominem Arguments , 1998 .

[22]  D. Walton.  Begging the Question in Arguments Based on Testimony , 2005 .

[23]  D. Walton,et al.  Commitment In Dialogue , 1995 .

[24]  E. Rigotti,et al.  Tema-rema e connettivo: la congruità semantico-pragmatica del testo , 2006 .

[25]  D. Walton.  A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy , 1995 .

[26]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Bias, Critical Doubt, and Fallacies , 1991 .

[27]  Douglas Walton,et al.  The interrogation as a type of dialogue , 2003 .

[28]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Logical dialogue-games and fallacies , 1984 .

[29]  M. Gatti.  La negazione fra semantica e pragmatica , 2000 .

[30]  Douglas Walton,et al.  Types of Dialogue, Dialectical Shifts and Fallacies* , 1992 .

[31]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  Profiles of Dialogue , 1999 .

[32]  E. Rigotti.  Towards a typology of manipulative processes , 2005 .

[33]  Erik C. W. Krabbe,et al.  From axiom to dialogue , 1982 .

[34]  J. Hintikka,et al.  Information-seeking dialogues: Some of their logical properties , 1979 .