Advertisement

Argumentation by Analogy in Stereotypical Argumentative Patterns

  • Frans H. van Eemeren
  • Bart Garssen
Chapter
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 25)

Abstract

As a consequence of the institutional preconditions applying to the strategic manoeuvring taking place in specific communicative activity types, certain context-dependent argumentative patterns of argument schemes and argumentation structures can be observed in argumentative discourse. Pragma-dialecticians are interested in discovering these patterns and in determining to what extent they are stereotypical of the communicative activity types associated with a specific communicative domain. This paper focuses on the way in which argumentation by analogy manifests itself in argumentative practice and the stereotypical argumentative patterns it is part of in various communicative domains. In the process, the pragma-dialectical view of argumentation by analogy is explained.

Keywords

Analogy argumentation Argument scheme Argumentation structure Argumentative pattern Communicative activity type Pragma-dialectical theory 

References

  1. van Eemeren, F. H. 2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. van Eemeren, F. H. 2013. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1): 11–32.Google Scholar
  3. van Eemeren, F. H., and B. Garssen. 2010. In varietate concordia—united in diversity. Europeanparliamentary debate as an argumentative activity type. Controversia. 7 (1): 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. van Eemeren, F. H., and R. Grootendorst. 1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. van Eemeren, F. H., and P. Houtlosser. 2002. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Maintaining a delicate balance. In Dialectic and rhetoric: The warp and woof of argumentation analysis, ed. F. H. van Eemeren and P. Houtlosser, 131–159. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fearnside, W. W., and W. B. Holther. 1959. Fallacy: The counterfeit of argument. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Garssen, B. 2009. Comparing the incomparable. Figurative analogies in a dialectical testing procedure. In Pondering on problems of argumentation: Twenty essays on theoretical issues, ed. F. H. van Eemeren and B. Garssen, 133–140. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Govier, T. 1987. Problems in argument analysis and evaluation. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  9. Hastings, A. C. 1962. A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Unpublished PhD diss., Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, S. (1986). Building a case for claims about discourse structure. In D. G. Ellis & W. A. Donohane (Eds.). Contemporary issues in language and discourse. (pp. 129–147). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  11. Juthe, A. 2009. Refutation by parallel argument. Argumentation 23 (2): 133–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (trans.: Wilkinson, J., & Weaver, P.). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. French edition: Perelman, C., and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958. La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  13. Searle, J. R. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Speech Communication, Argumentation Theory and RhetoricUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations