By Lilian Bermejo Luque
This ebook presents a brand new, linguistic method of Argumentation concept. Its major target is to combine the logical, dialectical and rhetorical dimensions of argumentation in a version delivering a unitary remedy of its justificatory and persuasive powers. This version takes as its foundation Speech Acts concept with the intention to symbolize argumentation as a second-order speech act complicated. the result's a scientific and complete thought of the translation, research and assessment of arguments. This concept sheds gentle at the many faces of argumentative conversation: verbal and non-verbal, monological and dialogical, literal and non-literal, usual and specialized.
The ebook takes into account the key present accomplished bills of fine argumentation (Perelman’s New Rhetoric, Pragma-dialectics, the ARG version, the Epistemic strategy) and exhibits that those debts have basic weaknesses rooted of their instrumentalist perception of argumentation as an task orientated to a objective exterior to itself. moreover, the writer addresses a few difficult meta-theoretical questions reminiscent of the justification challenge for Argumentation concept versions and the connection among reasoning and arguing.
Read or Download Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory PDF
Similar logic & language books
Ludwig Wittgenstein is among the most vital and influential philosophers of the 20th century, yet he's additionally one of many least obtainable. This quantity presents a understandable advisor to his paintings through a variety of specialists who're actively engaged in new paintings on Wittgenstein. The essays, that are either expository and unique, deal with critical topics in his philosophy of brain, language, good judgment, and arithmetic and make clear the connections one of the varied levels within the improvement of his paintings.
Volosinov's vital paintings, first released in Russian in 1929, needed to wait a new release for popularity. this primary paperback version of the English translation may be capital for literary theorists, philosophers, linguists, psychologists, and so forth. Volosinov is out to undo the previous disciplinary barriers among linguistics, rhetoric, and poetics with a purpose to build a brand new form of box: semiotics or textual idea.
So much reports of the serious philosophy continue traditionally, logically, or metaphysically. They hint the exterior impacts upon it, and its improvement inK ants brain; or, they inquire into its consistencies and try out its power from its personal rules; or, taking it as truth-expressing, they seek its metaphysical validity.
Booklet by means of Mosterin, Jesus, Torretti, Roberto
- A New Introduction to Modal Logic
- Logic and the Nature of Reality
- Abstraction and Infinity
- Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation
Additional resources for Giving Reasons: A Linguistic-Pragmatic Approach to Argumentation Theory
At best, we could assume that the premises do not entail the corresponding conclusions, because it is possible that they are true while the conclusions are false. But, why should we think of these arguments that they are circular? Actually, circularity is not the problem of these arguments, but rather of the deductivist attempt at showing that their conclusions are “truly” justified. As Robert Brandom has incisively reminded us, Sellars (1997) had already denounced “the received dogma. . that the inference which finds its expression in ‘It is raining, therefore the streets will be wet’ is an enthymeme” (Brandom 2000: 53).
3, I argue that current pragmatic proposals are bound to turn their accounts of argumentative value into instrumentalist ones, and I seek to show that this strategy is also very problematic. , the target-claim of an act of arguing. I will point out that this view is not committed to semantic deductivism. 4, I show that the only way to avoid instrumentalism in proposing a normative model for argumentation is to characterize argumentation goodness in terms of the right kind of concept of justification.
For its part, Pragma-dialectics characterized good argumentation as “argumentation able to resolve a difference of opinion”; and Johnson suggested that good argumentation is argumentation achieving the rational persuasion of its addressee. The linguistic-pragmatic approach that I endorse can be said to be epistemological in characterizing good argumentation as argumentation able to justify its target-claim. This view will be further specified as the idea that good argumentation is argumentation able to show its target-claim to be correct.