2012
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Instruments to Evaluate Pragmatic Argumentation: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In other words, according to the authors, the goal-premise and the circumstantial one need to be considered interdependently as support of the claim, while the value-premise stands in support of the goal premise and only indirectly of the claim (on argumentation structures, see Snoeck Henkemans 1992). However, in studies regarding the structure of the scheme for pragmatic argument (see Garssen 1997;Feteris 2002;Ihnen 2012), which are not discussed by the authors, the value premise is taken to be coordinatively and not subordinatively linked to the goal premise. The question here is not merely one of schematic representation but of significance to the role that each premise is considered to play in the defense of a normative claim.…”
Section: On the Proposed Structure Of Practical Argumentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In other words, according to the authors, the goal-premise and the circumstantial one need to be considered interdependently as support of the claim, while the value-premise stands in support of the goal premise and only indirectly of the claim (on argumentation structures, see Snoeck Henkemans 1992). However, in studies regarding the structure of the scheme for pragmatic argument (see Garssen 1997;Feteris 2002;Ihnen 2012), which are not discussed by the authors, the value premise is taken to be coordinatively and not subordinatively linked to the goal premise. The question here is not merely one of schematic representation but of significance to the role that each premise is considered to play in the defense of a normative claim.…”
Section: On the Proposed Structure Of Practical Argumentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Note 1. In this light, see Ihnen (2012) who seeks to provide a systematic instrument for the evaluation of pragmatic arguments within the pragma-dialectical approach, where the critical questions are to be asked in a certain order and specific results about the reasonableness of the argument are to be deduced from the answers provided.…”
Section: Final Pointsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Las preguntas críticas que listo a continuación son la versión contextualizada de un conjunto de preguntas críticas generales que propuse en publicaciones anteriores para evaluar la suficiencia de una argumentación por consecuencias. Las preguntas eran generales en el sentido de que pretendían ser relevantes, sino para todos, al menos para la mayoría de los contextos (Ihnen, 2012b) 17 . En esta ocasión, me propongo adaptar esas preguntas críticas generales a los objetivos, principios y normas del marco institucional que regulan el proceso de la formación de la ley en Chile 18 .…”
Section: Preguntas Críticas En La Discusión General De Un Proyecto Deunclassified
“…En la sección 3, y en buena parte sobre la base de estas definiciones, presento un concepto de suficiencia para la argumentación derrotable. Este marco conceptual debe bastante al trabajo de John Pollock sobre razonamiento derrotable y las nociones relacionadas de undercutter y rebutter, así como a la noción de preguntas críticas, conforme ha sido conceptualizada por la pragma-1 Para los ejemplos referentes a las críticas de suficiencia que pueden formularse a la argumentación por consecuencias (a veces también denominada "argumentación pragmática" o "instrumental") utilizo como punto de partida mis propias publicaciones sobre el esquema por consecuencias y sus preguntas críticas (Ihnen Jory 2012a, 2012b. http://doi.org/10.15366/ria2023.27.002 dialéctica.…”
Section: Introductionunclassified