New Dialectical Rules For Ambiguity

Informal Logic 20 (3) (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A set often rules is proposed for dealing with problems of ambiguity when interpreting a text of argumentative discourse. The rules are based on Grice's pragmatic rules for a collaborative conversation and on principles and maxims used to deal with ambiguity in interpreting legal and religious writings. The rules are meant to be applied to a given argument used in a given case, and to resolve (or at least deal with) an ambiguity in the argument (or affecting the argument) by using evidence derived from the text and context of dialogue surrounding the argument in the case

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.22329/il.v20i3.2280

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

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

The dialectic of ambiguity : a contribution to the study of argumentation.Jan Albert van Laar - unknown
The Limits of the Dialogue Model of Argument.J. Anthony Blair - 1997 - Argumentation 12 (2):325-339.
Ambiguity in argument.Jan Albert van Laar - 2010 - Argument and Computation 1 (2):125-146.
The One Fallacy Theory.Lawrence H. Powers - 1995 - Informal Logic 17 (2).
Distinguo: The response to equivocation. [REVIEW]Jim Mackenzie - 1988 - Argumentation 2 (4):465-482.
Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligence.Douglas N. Walton - 2006 - Pragmatics and Cognition 14 (1):3-36.
Ambiguity in a Dialectical Perspective.Jan Albert van Laar - 2001 - Informal Logic 21 (3).
Dialectical Relevance in Persuasion Dialogue.Douglas Walton - 1999 - Informal Logic 19 (2).
Argumentation Without Arguments.Henry Prakken - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (2):171-184.
The Methodological Approach to Argument Evaluation: Rules of Defining as Applied to Assessing Arguments.Marcin Koszowy - 2013 - Filozofia Nauki 21 (1).
Habermas and the force of dialectical argument.Mary Hesse - 1995 - History of European Ideas 21 (3):367-378.
Berkeley's Ambiguity.David A. Givner - 1970 - Dialogue 8 (4):646-662.
What is a Sophistical Refutation?David Botting - 2012 - Argumentation 26 (2):213-232.
Three Potential Problems for Powers' One-Fallacy Theory.Matthew Zuckero - 2003 - Informal Logic 23 (3):285-292.
The Zen of Argument Analysis: Reflections on Informal Logic's Argument Evaluation Contest.Don S. Levi - 1994 - Informal Logic 16 (2).

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-11-24

Downloads
58 (#270,773)

6 months
8 (#342,364)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Douglas Walton
Last affiliation: University of Windsor

Citations of this work

The Paradox of Charity.Marcin Lewiński - 2012 - Informal Logic 32 (4):403-439.
Reporting and Interpreting Intentions in Defamation Law.Fabrizio Macagno - 2015 - In Alessandro Capone, Ferenc Kiefer & Franco Lo Piparo (eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics. Cham: Imprint: Springer. pp. 593-619.
Profiles of Dialogue for Amphiboly.Douglas Walton - 2020 - Informal Logic 40 (1):3-45.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Logic and Conversation.H. P. Grice - 1975 - In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.), The Logic of Grammar. Encino, CA: pp. 64-75.
Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 1975 - In Maite Ezcurdia & Robert J. Stainton (eds.), The Semantics-Pragmatics Boundary in Philosophy. Broadview Press. pp. 47.
Logic and Conversation.H. Paul Grice - 1989 - In Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press. pp. 22-40.
Reasoning.Michael Scriven - 1976 - New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.

View all 11 references / Add more references