Switch to: References

Citations of:

A means-end classification of argumentation schemes

In Frans Hendrik van Eemeren & Bart Garssen (eds.), Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 183-201 (2015)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Reconstructing Multimodal Arguments in Advertisements: Combining Pragmatics and Argumentation Theory.Fabrizio Macagno & Rosalice Botelho Wakim Souza Pinto - 2021 - Argumentation 35 (1):141-176.
    The analysis of multimodal argumentation in advertising is a crucial and problematic area of research. While its importance is growing in a time characterized by images and pictorial messages, the methods used for interpreting and reconstructing the structure of arguments expressed through verbal and visual means capture only isolated dimensions of this complex phenomenon. This paper intends to propose and illustrate a methodology for the reconstruction and analysis of “double-mode” arguments in advertisements, combining the instruments developed in social semiotics, pragmatics, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Arguments from authority and expert opinion in computational argumentation systems.Douglas Walton & Marcin Koszowy - 2017 - AI and Society 32 (4):483-496.
    In this paper we show that an essential aspect of solving the problem of uncritical acceptance of expert opinions that is at the root of the ad verecundiam fallacy is the need to disentangle argument from expert opinion from another kind of appeal to authority. Formal and computational argumentation systems enable us to analyze the fault in which an error has occurred by virtue of a failure to meet one or more of the requirements of the argumentation scheme from argument (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • A classification system for argumentation schemes.Douglas Walton & Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - Argument and Computation 6 (3):219-245.
    This paper explains the importance of classifying argumentation schemes, and outlines how schemes are being used in current research in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics on argument mining. It provides a survey of the literature on scheme classification. What are so far generally taken to represent a set of the most widely useful defeasible argumentation schemes are surveyed and explained systematically, including some that are difficult to classify. A new classification system covering these centrally important schemes is built.
    Direct download (12 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • An arugmentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpertation.Douglas Walton, Giovanni Sartor & Fabrizio Macagno - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  • An argumentation framework for contested cases of statutory interpretation.Fabrizio Macagno, Giovanni Sartor & Douglas Walton - 2016 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 24 (1):51-91.
    This paper proposes an argumentation-based procedure for legal interpretation, by reinterpreting the traditional canons of textual interpretation in terms of argumentation schemes, which are then classified, formalized, and represented through argument visualization and evaluation tools. The problem of statutory interpretation is framed as one of weighing contested interpretations as pro and con arguments. The paper builds an interpretation procedure by formulating a set of argumentation schemes that can be used to comparatively evaluate the types of arguments used in cases of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • An Epistemological Appraisal of Walton’s Argument Schemes.Christoph Lumer - 2022 - Informal Logic 43 (4):203-290.
    Abstract: The article presents and critically discusses Walton's (and Reed's and Macagno's) argument scheme approach to a theory of good argumentation. In particular, four characteristics of Walton's approach are presented: 1. It presents normative requirements for argumentation in the form of argument schemes, i.e. relatively concrete type descriptions. 2. These schemata are enthymematic, i.e. they omit some of the premises required by other approaches. 3. The actual argument schemes are usually supplemented by critical questions. 4. The method is inductive, bottom-up, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • A Simple Theory of Argument Schemes.Geoff Goddu - 2021 - Informal Logic 41 (4):539-578.
    While there has been in depth discussion of many particular argumentation schemes, some lament that there is little to no theory underpinning the notion of an argumentation scheme. Here I shall argue against the utility of argument schemes, at least as a fundamental part of a complete theory of arguments. I shall also present and defend a minimalist theory of their nature—a scheme is just a set of proposition expressions and propositional functions. While simple, the theory contravenes several typical desiderata (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Arguments of statutory interpretation and argumentation schemes.Fabrizio Macagno & Douglas Walton - 2017 - International Journal of Legal Discourse 1 (21):47–83.
    In this paper it is shown how certain defeasible argumentation schemes can be used to represent the logical structure of the most common types of argument used for statutory interpretation both in civil and common law. The method is based on an argumentation structure in which the conclusion, namely, the meaning attributed to a legal source, is modeled as a claim that needs that is be supported by pro and con defeasible arguments. The defeasible nature of each scheme is shown (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Argumentation profiles and the manipulation of common ground. The arguments of populist leaders on Twitter.Fabrizio Macagno - 2022 - Journal of Pragmatics 191:67-82.
    The detection of hate speech and fake news in political discourse is at the same time a crucial necessity for democratic societies and a challenge for several areas of study. However, most of the studies have focused on what is explicitly stated: false article information, language that expresses hatred, derogatory expressions. This paper argues that the explicit dimension of manipulation is only one – and the least problematic – of the risks of political discourse. The language of the unsaid is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Recognizing Argument Types and Adding Missing Reasons.Christoph Lumer - 2019 - In Bart J. Garssen, David Godden, Gordon Mitchell & Jean Wagemans (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA). [Amsterdam, July 3-6, 2018.]. Amsterdam (Netherlands): pp. 769-777.
    The article develops and justifies, on the basis of the epistemological argumentation theory, two central pieces of the theory of evaluative argumentation interpretation: 1. criteria for recognizing argument types and 2. rules for adding reasons to create ideal arguments. Ad 1: The criteria for identifying argument types are a selection of essential elements from the definitions of the respective argument types. Ad 2: After presenting the general principles for adding reasons (benevolence, authenticity, immanence, optimization), heuristics are proposed for finding missing (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • What's in a good argument about evaluative claims? Argumentation in accountability practices.Mohammed Dima - unknown
    What counts as a good defence of the conduct of a political agent? I formulate an answer combining insights from argumentation scholarship on the different types of standpoints and the schemes suitable to defend them with insights from philosophical literature. The goal is to make a proposal that is best suitable for examining the type of evaluative claims that is typically discussed in accountability practices.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•