The pertinence of Toulmin and Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca for informal logic

Blair, J. Anthony

doi:10.14195/978-989-26-0498-5_1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…La técnica de la reconstrucción ha sido criticada por perspectivas que se distancian de la idea de que todo argumento puede formalizarse. De esta manera, Blair (2009) sostiene que la operación de la reconstrucción tiene tres problemas: 1) puede cambiar el significado del argumento, 2) es discutible cuál es la representación correcta que se consigue con esta operación, y 3) toma más tiempo enseñarla a los estudiantes. Además, la idea de que todo argumento puede reconstruirse implica que todo argumento debe ser deductivamente válido.…”

Section: Argumentos Difíciles De Reconstruirunclassified

Adding limits to argumentative reconstruction: the case of taste in argumentation

Mejía¹

2020

cogency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper questions the use of the argumentative reconstruction technique as a criterion for identifying arguments. To perform this, I stress a type of argument that appeals to taste. I proceed as follows: first, I relate such a technique to the ways in which pragma-dialectics and informal logic have defined argumentation. Second, I present some borderline cases to reconstruction technique such as argumentation through directives, expressives and commissives speech acts, narrative argumentation, and visual argumentation. Third, I add to these cases that of an argumentation that appeals to taste by analyzing a dialogue. Fourth, I conclude the article by offering reasons to study cases such as the one presented and by introducing some problems derived from the present study.

show abstract

Section: Argumentos Difíciles De Reconstruirunclassified

Adding limits to argumentative reconstruction: the case of taste in argumentation

Mejía¹

2020

cogency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is why theories of argumentation investigate schemata built on logical propositions, namely, on elements reconstructed by means of paraphrases. The problem inherent in this approach is described by Anthony Blair (2008) in his consideration of informal logic: the operation of ''paraphrasing the discourse into expressions […] amenable to formalization'' raises a few problems. In some cases, it changes the meaning of the original, and in some cases the question of what is the correct paraphrase becomes controversial (2008: 3).…”

Section: How To Account For Logos: Patterns Of Reasoning and Verbal Cmentioning

confidence: 99%

The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis

Amossy

2009

Argumentation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims at showing how the New Rhetoric's insights allow for an integration of argumentation studies in linguistic investigation, and more specifically in discourse analysis. Claiming that argumentativity is a constitutive feature of discourse, it endeavors to explore logos as both reason and language by analyzing patterns of reasoning in their discursive actualization. In this approach, the attempt at influencing the audience's representations is analyzed in the complexity of a discourse explored in its formal and socio-institutional dimensions.

show abstract

Bibliographie

2021

l'Argumentation Dans Le Discours

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pertinence of Toulmin and Perelman/Olbrechts-Tyteca for informal logic

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

Adding limits to argumentative reconstruction: the case of taste in argumentation

Adding limits to argumentative reconstruction: the case of taste in argumentation

The New Rhetoric’s Inheritance. Argumentation and Discourse Analysis

Bibliographie

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About