Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue

Informal Logic 19 (2) (1999)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

How to model relevance in argumentation is an important problem for informal logic. Dialectical relcvance is determined by the use of an argument for some purpose in different types of dialogue, according to the ncw dialectic. A central type of dialogue is persuasion dialogue in which one participant uses rational argumentation to try to get the other participant to accept a designated proposition. In this paper, a method for judging relevance in persuasion dialogue is presented. The method is based on using the technique of argument diagramming

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.22329/il.v19i2.2323

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,202

External links

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

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Classification of Fallacies of Relevance.Douglas Walton - 2004 - Informal Logic 24 (1):71-103.
So what? Profiles for relevance criticism in persuation dialogues.Erik C. W. Krabbe - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):271-283.
The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Attributed Favourable Relevance and Argument Evaluation.Derek Allen - 1996 - Informal Logic 18 (2).
The Significance of Informal Logic for Philosophy.David Hitchcock - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (2).
Johnstone's View of Rhetorical and Dialectical Argument.Douglas Walton - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (1).
Dialectical Relevance and Dialogical Context in Walton’s Pragmatic Theory.Fabrizio Macagno - 2008 - Informal Logic 28 (2):102-128.
Topical relevance in argumentation.Douglas N. Walton - 1982 - Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
New Dialectical Rules For Ambiguity.Douglas Walton - 2000 - Informal Logic 20 (3).
Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.
Dialogue theory for critical thinking.Douglas N. Walton - 1989 - Argumentation 3 (2):169-184.
Premissary relevance.J. Anthony Blair - 1992 - Argumentation 6 (2):203-217.
Begging what is at issue in the argument.Don S. Levi - 1994 - Argumentation 8 (3):265-282.
A method for the computational modelling of dialectical argument with dialogue games.T. J. M. Bench-Capon, T. Geldard & P. H. Leng - 2000 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 8 (2-3):233-254.
Enhancing the Diagramming Method in Informal Logic.Dale Jacquette - 2011 - Argument: Biannual Philosophical Journal 1 (2):327-360.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
122 (#142,624)

6 months
4 (#678,769)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Douglas Walton
Last affiliation: University of Windsor

Citations of this work

Presupposition as Argumentative Reasoning.Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - In Alessandro Capone & Jacob Mey (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society. Cham, Switzerland: pp. 465-487.
Douglas Walton’s Contributions in Education.Chrysi Rapanta - 2022 - Informal Logic 43 (4):139-170.
Persuasion dialogue in online dispute resolution.Douglas Walton & David M. Godden - 2005 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 13 (2):273-295.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective.R. Grootendorst, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren - 2015 - In Scott Jacobs, Sally Jackson, Frans Eemeren & Frans H. van Eemeren (eds.), Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development of Pragma-Dialectics. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Verlag. pp. 283-301.

Add more references