The title of the present paper might sound like a typical many-question fallacy, as it hides, under the form of a double indirect question, two standpoints. Indeed, since both standpoints are declared and as many interrogatives signal their questionable nature, what is hidden is only the relationship between the standpoints. Now, if for a certain aspect, as suggested by the word order too, the meaningfulness of the how presupposes an affirmative answer to the whether, in another perspective, the reasonableness of the whether, that is properly at issue here, totally depends on the how. In other words, my investigation aims to identify the conditions at which classical topics can be retrieved. I start recalling the context of this investigation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Bigi, S. (2007). Keywords in argumentative texts and their persuasive power. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation. Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Bochenski, M. (Ed.). (1947). Petri Hispani Summulae Logicales. Torino: Marietti.
Braet, A. (2005). The common topic in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Precursor of the argumentation scheme. Argumentation, 19, 65–83.
Buridan, J. (2001). Summulae de Dialectica. (G. Klima, Trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cigada, S. (2007). Past-oriented and future-oriented emotions in argumentation for Europe during the fifties. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 241–245). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Cancelli, F. (Ed.). (1992). Cicerone: La retorica a Gaio Erennio. Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori Editore.
De Rijk, L. M. (Ed.). (1970). Petrus Abaelardus, Dialectica: First complete edition of the Parisian manuscript with an introduction. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Garssen, B. (2001). Argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Greco Morasso, S. (2007). The covert argumentativity of mediation: Developing argumentation through asking questions. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 513–520). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Grennan, W. (1997). Informal Logic. Montreal: McGill University Press.
Hastings, A. C. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Hjelmslev, L. (1953). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Baltimore: Waverly Press.
Hubbel, H. M. (Ed.). (1949). Cicero: On Inventio – On the Best kind of Orator – Topics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Katzav, J., & Reed, C. (2004). On argumentation schemes and the natural classification of arguments. Argumentation, 18(2), 239–259.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
Minio-Paluello, L. (Ed.). (1949). Aristotelis Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1958). Traité de l’Argumentation: La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Paris: P.U.F.
Reinhardt, T. (Ed.). (2003). Marcus Tullius Cicero, Topica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rigotti, E. (1993). La sequenza testuale. Definizione e procedimenti di analisi con esemplificazione in lingue diverse. L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria, 1(2), 43–148.
Rigotti, E. (2005). Congruity theory and argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 75–96.
Rigotti, E. (2006). Relevance of context-bound loci to topical potential in the argumentation stage. Argumentation, 20, 519–540.
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2006). Topics: The argument generator. Argumentum e-learning Module. www.argumentum.ch.
Rigotti, E., Rocci, A., & Greco, S. (2006). The semantics of reasonableness. In P. Houtlosser #x0026; A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-dialectics (pp. 257–274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rocci, A. (2005a). Connective predicates in monologic and dialogic argumentation. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 97–118.
Rocci, A. (2005b). La modalitá epistemica tra semantica e argomentazione. Milano: Pubblicazioni dell’ISU Universitá Cattolica.
Ross, W. D. (Ed.). (1950). Aristotelis Physica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross, W. D. (Ed.). (1958). Aristotelis Topica et Sophistici Elenchi. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ross, W. D. (Ed.). (1959). Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stump, E. (Ed.). (2004). Boethius’s “De Topicis Differentiis”. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tardini, S. (2007). Argumentum: An e-Course for learning argumentation by arguing. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & B. Garssen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1353–1358). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Toulmin, S., Riecke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering: maintaining a delicate balance. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.), Dialectic and Rhetoric. The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2005). Theoretical construction and argumentative reality: An analytic model of critical discussion and conventionalised types of argumentative activity. In D. Hitchcock & D. Farr (Eds.), The uses of Argument. Proceedings of a Conference at McMaster University, 18–21 May 2005 (pp. 75–84). Hamilton: Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Walton, D. (2005a). Begging the question in arguments based on testimony. Argumentation, 19, 85–113.
Walton, D. (2005b). How to evaluate argumentation using schemes, diagrams, critical questions and dialogues. Studies in Communication Sciences, Special Issue Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction, 51–74.
Winterbottom, M. (Ed.). (1970). M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri XII. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wüest, J. (2001). La gerarchia degli atti linguistici nel testo. Studies in Communication Sciences, 1(1), 195–211.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rigotti, E. (2009). Whether and How Classical Topics can be Revived Within Contemporary Argumentation Theory. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9165-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)