Writing in Argumentation Theory

Last updated

Writing in Argumentation Theory is the study of how conclusions are reached through logical reasoning and persuasive discourse. [1] Argumentation involves constructing, analyzing, and evaluating arguments to convince others of a particular standpoint or to reach mutual understanding. [2] In written form, argumentation is essential across various domains, including academic writing, legal reasoning, and public discourse. [3] It enables individuals to present ideas coherently, support claims with evidence and engage critically with differing viewpoints. [4]

Contents

History of written argumentation

The roots of written argumentation trace back to ancient civilizations, notably in Greek and Roman societies where rhetoric was a fundamental component of education. Aristotle's Rhetoric (circa 4th century BCE) is one of the earliest works examining the art of persuasion, laying the groundwork for later argumentation theories. [5] During the Middle Ages, scholars like Thomas Aquinas further developed argumentative writing within theological and philosophical contexts.

Between the 15th and 19th centuries, argumentation theory underwent significant transformations influenced by the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the rise of scientific thinking. The Renaissance humanist Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) challenged traditional Aristotelian logic by advocating for a more simplified and practical approach to dialectic and rhetoric. [6] In his works, Ramus restructured the trivium—grammar, rhetoric, and logic—emphasizing rhetoric's role in effective communication and argumentation.

Francis Bacon (1561–1626) introduced a new method of reasoning based on empirical observation and inductive logic in his work Novum Organum (1620). Bacon's emphasis on inductive reasoning laid the groundwork for the scientific method, promoting a systematic approach to forming arguments based on evidence gathered from experimentation and observation. [7]

In 1662, Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole published Logique de Port-Royal (commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic). This work integrated Cartesian philosophy with traditional logic, focusing on clarity of thought and the use of reason in argumentative discourse. [8] Traditional logic, rooted in Aristotelian principles, emphasized syllogistic structures for validating arguments. By incorporating Cartesian ideas like methodological skepticism and rational clarity, Port-Royal Logic marked a further advancement in argumentation theory, highlighting a balance between deductive structures and pragmatic clarity.

During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) explored the limits and capacities of human reason. In Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant examined the structures of rational thought, affecting how arguments were constructed and understood. [9] His work contributed to the development of epistemology and had lasting impacts on argumentation by questioning the nature of knowledge and reasoning.

The 19th century continued to expand on these foundations with the rise of formal logic and the study of fallacies. Richard Whately's Elements of Logic (1826) revived interest in Aristotelian logic, adapting it to modern contexts and emphasizing its practical applications in argumentation and rhetoric. [10] Whately's work became a standard textbook, shaping the teaching of logic and argumentation in English-speaking countries.

In the modern era, argumentation theory evolved significantly with the advent of formal logic and the study of reasoning. Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958) marked a pivotal moment by challenging the dominance of formal logic in understanding everyday arguments. [11] Toulmin introduced a model emphasizing practical reasoning, highlighting how real-world arguments function beyond strict logical structures.

The latter half of the 20th century saw the rise of informal logic and critical thinking movements. Scholars like Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced The New Rhetoric (1969), which emphasized argumentation in practical contexts. [12] Additionally, the development of pragma-dialectics by Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst provided a systematic approach to argumentative discourse, focusing on resolving differences of opinion through critical discussion. [13]

Theories regards to written argumentation

Formal Logic

Formal logic focuses on the structural validity of arguments using symbolic representation. It deals with deductive reasoning where conclusions necessarily follow from premises. While essential in mathematics and computer science, its applicability to everyday argumentation is limited due to its abstraction from context. [2]

Informal Logic

Informal logic addresses reasoning in natural language, concentrating on the content and context of arguments. [1] It involves the analysis of argumentation fallacies, reasoning patterns, and the effectiveness of persuasive techniques in ordinary discourse. [3]

Toulmin Model of Argumentation

Main article: Stephen Toulmin

Proposed by Stephen Toulmin, this model outlines components of practical arguments, including the claim, data (evidence), warrant (justification), backing, qualifier, and rebuttal. [2] It is widely used in teaching argumentative writing and analyzing real-life arguments. [2]

Pragma-Dialectics

Main article: Pragma-dialectics

Developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst, this approach combines pragmatic aspects of language use with dialectical structures to evaluate argumentative discourse. It sets out rules for critical discussion aimed at resolving differences of opinion constructively.

Rhetorical Argumentation

Stemming from classical rhetoric, this type emphasizes the persuasive aspects of argumentation, focusing on ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning). It is concerned with the effectiveness of arguments in influencing an audience. [3]

Cognitive Approaches

Main article: Elaboration likelihood model

Cognitive approaches examine how psychological processes affect argumentation. [14] The Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) explores how individuals are persuaded either through central (deep processing) or peripheral (surface characteristics) routes. [14]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetoric</span> Art of persuasion

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It is one of the three ancient arts of discourse (trivium) along with grammar and logic/dialectic. As an academic discipline within the humanities, rhetoric aims to study the techniques that speakers or writers use to inform, persuade, and motivate their audiences. Rhetoric also provides heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations.

Dialectic, also known as the dialectical method, refers originally to dialogue between people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to arrive at the truth through reasoned argument. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and rhetoric. It has its origins in ancient philosophy and continued to be developed in the Middle Ages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fallacy</span> Argument that uses faulty reasoning

A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning in the construction of an argument that may appear to be well-reasoned if unnoticed. The term was introduced in the Western intellectual tradition by the Aristotelian De Sophisticis Elenchis.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Argumentation theory</span> Academic field of logic and rhetoric

Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings.

<i>Inventio</i> Canon of rhetoric

Inventio, one of the five canons of rhetoric, is the method used for the discovery of arguments in Western rhetoric and comes from the Latin word, meaning "invention" or "discovery". Inventio is the central, indispensable canon of rhetoric, and traditionally means a systematic search for arguments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stephen Toulmin</span> English philosopher (1922–2009)

Stephen Edelston Toulmin was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of moral reasoning. Throughout his writings, he sought to develop practical arguments which can be used effectively in evaluating the ethics behind moral issues. His works were later found useful in the field of rhetoric for analyzing rhetorical arguments. The Toulmin model of argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components used for analyzing arguments, and published in his 1958 book The Uses of Argument, was considered his most influential work, particularly in the field of rhetoric and communication, and in computer science.

In philosophy of logic, defeasible reasoning is a kind of provisional reasoning that is rationally compelling, though not deductively valid. It usually occurs when a rule is given, but there may be specific exceptions to the rule, or subclasses that are subject to a different rule. Defeasibility is found in literatures that are concerned with argument and the process of argument, or heuristic reasoning.

Pragma-dialectics, or pragma-dialectical theory, developed by Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst at the University of Amsterdam, is an argumentation theory that is used to analyze and evaluate argumentation in actual practice. Unlike strictly logical approaches, or purely communication approaches, pragma-dialectics was developed to study the entirety of an argumentation as a discourse activity. Thus, the pragma-dialectical theory views argumentation as a complex speech act that occurs as part of natural language activities and has specific communicative goals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Chaïm Perelman</span> Belgian philosopher (1912–1984)

Chaïm Perelman was a Belgian philosopher of Polish-Jewish origin. He was among the most important argumentation theorists of the 20th century. His chief work is the Traité de l'argumentation – la nouvelle rhétorique (1958), with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, translated into English as The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (1969).

Rhetorical reason is the faculty of discovering the crux of the matter. It is a characteristic of rhetorical invention (inventio) and it precedes argumentation.

Appeal to the stone, also known as argumentum ad lapidem, is a logical fallacy that dismisses an argument as untrue or absurd. The dismissal is made by stating or reiterating that the argument is absurd, without providing further argumentation. This theory is closely tied to proof by assertion due to the lack of evidence behind the statement and its attempt to persuade without providing any evidence.

An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Informal logic</span> Branch of logic

Informal logic encompasses the principles of logic and logical thought outside of a formal setting. However, the precise definition of "informal logic" is a matter of some dispute. Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair define informal logic as "a branch of logic whose task is to develop non-formal standards, criteria, procedures for the analysis, interpretation, evaluation, criticism and construction of argumentation." This definition reflects what had been implicit in their practice and what others were doing in their informal logic texts.

Rob Grootendorst was a Dutch communication and argumentation theory scholar. He was professor for Dutch speech communication at the University of Amsterdam. His contributions to the argumentation field include the co-foundation of the pragma-dialectic school in argumentation theory.

Dialogical logic was conceived as a pragmatic approach to the semantics of logic that resorts to concepts of game theory such as "winning a play" and that of "winning strategy".

Frans Hendrik van Eemeren is a Dutch scholar, professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and Rhetoric at the University of Amsterdam. He is noted for his Pragma-dialectics theory, an argumentation theory which he developed with Rob Grootendorst from the early 1980s onwards. He has published numerous books and papers, including Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Harald Wohlrapp</span> German philosopher (born 1944)

Harald R. Wohlrapp is a German philosopher. His main focus is argumentation theory.

Formal scientists have attempted to combine formal logic and dialectic through formalisation of dialectic. These attempts include pre-formal and partially formal treatises on argument and dialectic, systems based on defeasible reasoning, and systems based on game semantics and dialogical logic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ancient Indian rhetoric</span> Traditional forms of an Indian art of discourse

India has a long tradition of rhetoric about politics, philosophy, and religion, starting from ancient times.

In argumentation theory, an argumentation scheme or argument scheme is a template that represents a common type of argument used in ordinary conversation. Many different argumentation schemes have been identified. Each one has a name and presents a type of connection between premises and a conclusion in an argument, and this connection is expressed as a rule of inference. Argumentation schemes can include inferences based on different types of reasoning—deductive, inductive, abductive, probabilistic, etc.

References

  1. 1 2 Perelman, Chaim; Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Toulmin, Stephen (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. 1 2 3 Elbow, Peter (2001). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  4. ↑ Johns, Ann M. (1997). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice. London: Routledge.
  5. ↑ Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
  6. ↑ Ramus, P. (2010). Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian: Translation and Text of Peter Ramus's Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum. (C. Newlands, Trans.). Pennsylvania State University Press.
  7. ↑ Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon. (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
  8. ↑ Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the Art of Thinking (The Port-Royal Logic). (J. V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
  9. ↑ Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
  10. ↑ Whately, R. (1963). Elements of Logic. D. Appleton and Company.
  11. ↑ Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
  12. ↑ Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
  13. ↑ van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
  14. 1 2 Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T. (1986). "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19: 123–205.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.