Studies in honor of Eddo Rigotti
Edited By Giovanni Gobber and Andrea Rocci
Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton: Argumentation schemes and topical relations
| 185 →
Argumentation schemes and topical relations
FABRIZIO MACAGNO, University of Lisbon & DOUGLAS WALTON, University of Windsor
One of the cornerstones of argumentation theory is the analysis of the structure of natural arguments. Dialectical and rhetorical arguments cannot be investigated by simply using the logical categories drawn from the formal meaning of quantifiers and connectors. While formal rules merely transfer the truth value of the premises to the conclusion, natural arguments are characterized by the notion of acceptability. What argumentative reasoning conveys from the premises to the conclusion is the hearer’s attitude towards the state of affairs or the judgment expressed by a dialogue move (Rigotti 1995: 8). However, if we take into consideration the speaker and the hearer of a message in analyzing argumentative reasoning, the traditional formal systems become inadequate to investigate natural arguments, as they cannot capture the very purpose of argumentation, i.e. the modification of the interlocutors’ attitudes and commitments, their perception of reality (Krabbe 2013).
In this wider perspective on reasoned argumentation, the pragmatic purpose of a dialogue move needs to be taken into account. Reasonableness (Rigotti, Rocci and Greco 2006), which is irrelevant in a formal approach to arguments, becomes the cornerstone of the pragmatic approach to natural arguments. What matters in argumentative inferences is not only whether the conclusion follows from the premises, but how it does. Even though the affirmation of the antecedent in a conditional necessarily leads to the affirmation of the consequent,...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.