Freeman Argument Structure:

Representation and Theory
1. Auflage 2011
ISBN: 978-94-007-0357-5
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Format: PDF
Kopierschutz: 1 - PDF Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band 18, 214 Seiten

Reihe: Argumentation Library

This monograph first presents a method of diagramming argument macrostructure, synthesizing the standard circle and arrow approach with the Toulmin model. A theoretical justification of this method through a dialectical understanding of argument, a critical examination of Toulmin on warrants, a thorough discussion of the linked-convergent distinction, and an account of the proper reconstruction of enthymemes follows.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Freeman, James B.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Preface;7
2;Origins of the Chapters;14
3;Contents;15
4;1 An Approach to Argument Macrostructure;17
4.1;1.1 Introduction---Some Basic Preliminaries;17
4.2;1.2 The Standard Approach;19
4.3;1.3 Toulmins Layout of Arguments;26
4.4;1.4 Integrating the Standard Approach and the Toulmin Model;28
4.5;1.5 The Extended Standard Approach and the Toulmin Model;45
4.6;1.6 Concluding Remarks;45
4.7;Appendix 1: Comparison with Wigmores Chart Method;47
4.8;Appendix 2: Comparison with Pollocks Inference Graphs;50
5;2 The Dialectical Nature of Argument;55
5.1;2.1 Dialogical Situations and Dialectical Situations;55
5.2;2.2 What Makes Dialectical Situations Dialectical?;56
5.3;2.3 The Basic Dialectical Situation as a Model for Argument;58
5.4;2.4 Some Other Dialectical Views on Argument;62
5.5;2.5 Two Possible Problems for Our Approach: Demonstrations and Inferences;64
5.6;2.6 But is Our Model Really Dialectical?;69
6;3 Toulmins Problematic Notion of Warrant;75
6.1;3.1 Warrants and Arguments as Process;76
6.2;3.2 What are Warrants?;78
6.3;3.3 Toulmin on Certain Syllogisms;79
6.4;3.4 Ryle on Conditionals;86
6.5;3.5 Mill on the Syllogism;92
6.6;3.6 Warrants as Always Implicit, if not Explicit in Arguments as Products;96
6.7;3.7 Some Problems With This View;99
7;4 The Linked-Convergent Distinction---A First Approximation;105
7.1;4.1 The Problem Encountered;105
7.2;4.2 Motivating the Linked-Convergent Through the Relevance-Ground Adequacy Distinction;110
7.3;4.3 Testing Our Account of the Distinction;112
7.4;4.4 Implication of Rebuttals for the Linked-Convergent Distinction;120
8;5 Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective: The Linked-Convergent Versus Multiple-Co-ordinatively Compound Distinctions;122
8.1;5.1 The Multiple-Co-ordinatively Compound Distinction;123
8.2;5.2 Contrast with the Linked-Convergent Distinction;127
8.3;5.3 Resolving Conflicting Accounts of the Linked-Convergent Distinction;128
8.4;5.4 Postscript--Modalities, Defeaters, Counter-Defeaters in Disciplinary Perspective;134
9;6 The Linked-Convergent Distinction--Refining the Criterion;144
9.1;6.1 Dependent Versus Independent Relevance Explicated;144
9.2;6.2 Tests for the Linked-Convergent Distinction on Waltons Systematic Presentation;156
9.3;6.3 Complementary Arguments--a Third Structure Beside Linked and Convergent;163
9.4;6.4 Further Critiques, Clarifications, and Replies;164
9.4.1;6.4.1 Bassham's Challenging Example;165
9.4.2;6.4.2 Must We Admit an Additional Type of Structure?;165
9.4.3;6.4.3 Does Analysis Always Precede Evaluation?;169
9.4.4;6.4.4 Direct Criticisms of the Relevance Test;173
9.4.5;6.4.5 Should We Even Want to Make the Linked-Convergent Distinction?;179
10;7 Argument Structure and Enthymemes;187
10.1;7.1 Hitchcocks Challenge to the Notion of Non-Explicit Premises and His Alternative;189
10.2;7.2 Problems with Hitchcocks Analysis;197
10.3;7.3 A Middle Way: Discerning Inference Licences and Non-Explicit Premises;200
10.4;7.4 Advantages of This Middle Way;203
10.4.1;7.4.1 Our Procedure Avoids Reading Assumptions Into Arguments;203
10.4.2;7.4.2 Our Procedure Avoids ''Deductive Chauvinism'';206
10.5;7.5 Enthymemes and the Borderline Between Argument Analysis and Evaluation;208
11;8 From Analysis to Evaluation;210
11.1;8.1 Convergent Arguments and Determining the Combined Weight of Premises;210
11.2;8.2 Premises, Uncountered Defeaters, and Conjunctions;213
11.3;8.3 Pollocks Inference Graphs and the Issue of Argument Evaluation;214
12;References;218
13;Index;222