Eddo Rigotti and Sara Greco: Inference in Argumentation. A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes

Argumentation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 399-402
Author(s):  
Christophe Geudens
Keyword(s):  
Semiotica ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 (220) ◽  
pp. 123-153
Author(s):  
Andrea Rocci ◽  
Sabrina Mazzali-Lurati ◽  
Chiara Pollaroli

AbstractThe aim of this article is to contribute to the theoretical development of multimodal metonymy and the argumentative and rhetorical role that the trope can fulfil in multimodal advertising campaigns. A model for the analysis of multimodal tropes in page-based advertising messages is developed by drawing insights from different disciplines. This model involves the identification of the elementary and layout components of the message, the description of its multimodal structure (in terms of the visual structure and the contribution of the verbal component), the reconstruction of its meaning operation, and the reconstruction of its enthymematic structure. In particular, the meaning operation is reconstructed by the employment of Conceptual Integration Theory, which we have slightly revised in order to better account for metonymical mappings. The enthymematic structure is reconstructed following the Argumentum Model of Topics, a model of argument schemes that enables one to make explicit the contextual and the logical dimensions of arguments. Based on the tenets of the two frameworks, we claim that multimodal metonymy condenses and gives access to a complex chain of connections, which mirrors the argumentation the audience is invited to infer. This argumentation is based on causal schemes of reasoning. This claim results in the in-depth analysis of both a billboard belonging to an anti-AIDS campaign and a social campaign by Greenpeace against the use of environmental-damaging paper for toy packages by Mattel.


Argumentation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacky Visser ◽  
John Lawrence ◽  
Chris Reed ◽  
Jean Wagemans ◽  
Douglas Walton
Keyword(s):  

Argumentation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-498
Author(s):  
Shiyang Yu ◽  
Frank Zenker

Abstract According to the argument scheme approach, to evaluate a given scheme-saturating instance completely does entail asking all critical questions (CQs) relevant to it. Although this is a central task for argumentation theorists, the field currently lacks a method for providing a complete argument evaluation. Approaching this task at the meta-level, we combine a logical with a substantive approach to the argument schemes by starting from Toulmin’s schema: ‘data, warrant, so claim’. For the yet more general schema: ‘premise(s); if premise(s), then conclusion; so conclusion’, we forward a meta-level CQ-list that is arguably both complete and applicable. This list should inform ongoing theoretical efforts at generating appropriate object-level CQs for specific argument schemes.


2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 160-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Parsons ◽  
Katie Atkinson ◽  
Zimi Li ◽  
Peter McBurney ◽  
Elizabeth Sklar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 539-578
Author(s):  
Geoff Goddu

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 of argumentation schemes such as (i) aiding in the identification of enthymemes and (ii) keeping arguments constrained to a manageable taxonomy. So much the worse for the desiderata. Instead, I shall recommend focusing less on schemes and more on the component propositional functions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document