Argument Structure and Disciplinary Perspective

Argumentation 15 (4):397-423 (2001)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many in the informal logic tradition distinguish convergent from linked argument structure. The pragma-dialectical tradition distinguishes multiple from co-ordinatively compound argumentation. Although these two distinctions may appear to coincide, constituting only a terminological difference, we argue that they are distinct, indeed expressing different disciplinary perspectives on argumentation. From a logical point of view, where the primary evaluative issue concerns sufficient strength of support, the unit of analysis is the individual argument, the particular premises put forward to support a given conclusion. Structure is internal to this unit. From a dialectical point of view, where the focus concerns how well a critical discussion comes to a reasoned conclusion of some disputed question, the argumentation need not constitute a single unit of argument. The unit of dialectical analysis will be the entire argumentation made up of these several arguments. The multiple/co-ordinatively compound distinction is dialectical, while the linked/convergent distinction is logical. Keeping these two pairs of distinctions separate allows us to see certain attempts to characterize convergent versus linked arguments as rather characterizing multiple versus co-ordinatively compound arguments, in particular attempts of Thomas, Nolt, and Yanal, and to resolve straightforwardly conflicts, tensions, or anomalies in their accounts. Walton's preferred Suspension/Insufficient Proof test to identify linked argument structure correctly identifies co-ordinatively compound structure. His objection to using the concept of relevance to explicate the distinction between linked and convergent structure within co-ordinatively compound argumentation can be met through explicating relevance in terms of inference licenses. His counterexample to the Suspension/No Support test for identifying linked structure which this approach supports can itself be straightforwardly dealt with when the test is explicated through inference licenses

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,593

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
Mapping the Structure of Debate.Jeff Yoshimi - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):1-22.
Phenomenological Argumentative Structure.Gilbert Plumer - 2001 - Argumentation 15 (2):173-189.
Consciousness and the state/transitive/creature distinction.R. McBride - 1999 - Philosophical Psychology 12 (2):181-196.

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-09-11

Downloads
43 (#324,761)

6 months
3 (#445,838)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

A practical study of argument.Trudy Govier - 1991 - Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co..
The Uses of Argument.Stephen E. Toulmin - 1958 - Philosophy 34 (130):244-245.
Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory.Douglas N. Walton - 1996 - Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Introduction to Logic.Irving M. Copi - 1956 - Philosophy of Science 23 (3):267-268.

View all 11 references / Add more references