Abstract
Argumentation schemes are forms of argument that model stereotypical patterns of reasoning. This paper is part of a project on the formalization of argumentation schemes. The paper shows how argumentation schemes and critical questions should be fitted into the technique of argument diagramming using the Araucaria software system. This XML-based system provides an interface through which the user can mark up a text of discourse to produce an argument diagram. We discuss several problems arising from the need to deal with enthymemes.
The formulation of the set of presumptive schemes in (Walton, 1996) was rough and ready. The variables and constants used in the schemes are quite a varied bunch, and have not been all incorporated into any single over-arching formal structure. Only the most rudimentary attempt was made to classify the schemes by a tree-structure exhibiting how some fall under others. In many cases, the organization of the premises of the scheme and the matching critical questions was obviously clumsy. For example, in some instances, it seemed that the critical question merely asked whether one of the premises was true or acceptable. Thus it looked like either the premise or the critical question was redundant. These same problems were perhaps even more evident in (1963) initial attempt to introduce a comprehensive set of schemes with matching critical questions.
Now that we have a new software system for argumentation diagramming that can accommodate argumentation schemes, many of these technical issues of how to clean up the schemes appear more pressing. Before this point they may have seemed relatively minor matters of detail to the working argumentation theorist or teacher of critical thinking. But now they demand our attention. In this presentation, some of the very most elementary of these technical questions of formalization of schemes are raised. As a means of arranging these questions, let us lay out our aims as desiderata for a theory of argumentation schemes. Such a theory should be
-
rich and sufficiently exhaustive to cover a large proportion of naturally occurring argument
-
simple, so that it can be taught in the classroom, and applied by students
-
fine-grained, so that it can be useful employed both as a normative and evaluative system
-
rigorous, and fully specified, so that it might be represented in a computational language such as XML
-
clear, so that it can be integrated into traditional diagramming technique.
This is a challenging list to tackle, not least because some of these are at odds with one another: the more fine-grained our theory is, for example, the less likely it is to be at all exhaustive. Similarly, rigorous specification is crucial for computational representation, but a siginificant barrier for application to the real world. Happily, some of the aims do hang together: simplicity, for example, works to support not only computer representation, but also diagramming and classroom teaching. This then is where we are headed. Here, we briefly describe the Araucaria computer system that supports analysis of argument (and subsequent retrieval and manipulation of argument analyses), and how that software has provided a basis for formulating further developments in a theory of argumentation schemes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Aristotle (1937). The Art of Rhetoric, trans. John Henry Freese. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1939). Topics, trans. E.S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle (1984). Prior Analytics, trans. Jonathan Barnes. The Complete Works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press 39–113.
Burke, M. (1985). Unstated premises, Informal Logic, 7, 107–118.
Burnyeat, M.F. (1994). Enthymeme: Aristotle on the logic of persuasion. In David J. Furley and Alexander Nehemas (Eds.), Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press (pp. 3–55).
Eemeren, F.H. van and Rob Grootendorst(1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris.
Eemeren, F.H. van and Rob Grootendorst (1992). Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Gough, J. & Tindale, C.(1985). Hidden or missing premises. Informal Logic, 7, 99–106.
Hastings, A.C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation. Evanston, Illinois: Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University.
Hitchcock, D. (1985). Enthymematic arguments. Informal Logic, 7, 83–97.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart: Fromman-Holzboog.
Jovicic, T. (2002). Authority-Based Argumentative Strategies, Doctoral Dissertation in the Department of Theoretical Philosophy, Uppsala University. Uppsala, Sweden.
Krabbe, E.C.W. (1999) Profiles of Dialogue. In ed. Jelle Gerbrandy, Maarten Marx, Maarten de Rijke and and Yde Venema (Eds.), JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of his 50 th Birthday. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press (pp. 25–36).
Perelman C. and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca (1969). The New Rhetoric. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Pollock, J.L. (1987). Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11 pp. 481–518.
Reed, C.A. & Rowe, G.W.A. (2001) “Araucaria: software for solving puzzles in argument diagramming”, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Technical Report, also available from: www.computinq.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria <http://www.computinq.dundee.ac.uk/staff/creed/araucaria >
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Walton, D. (1997). Appeal to Expert Opinion. University Park: Penn State Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D., Reed, C. (2003). Diagramming, Argumentation Schemes and Critical Questions. In: Van Eemeren, F.H., Blair, J.A., Willard, C.A., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F. (eds) Anyone Who Has a View. Argumentation Library, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1078-8_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1456-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1078-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive