Frans van Eemeren

ABSTRACT Before embarking on discussions of the various formal dialectical approaches to argumentation, Chapter 6 contains, in Sect. 6.1, a discussion of the nature of formal approaches in general and the ways in which they can be used, followed in Sect. 6.2 by a long exposé about the Erlangen School and its project for the reform of thought and speech needed to make a new start at reasonable dialogue. It is shown how Lorenzen’s dialogical logic (his rules for logical constants) fitted into this program and yielded systems for argumentation that could later (after Hamblin had coined the name) be counted as a brand of formal dialectic. Next, some related – though differently motivated – proposals by Hintikka and by Rescher are briefly discussed in Sects. 6.3 and 6.4. The fundamental norms of formal dialectics, proposed by Barth and Krabbe, are explained in some detail in Sect. 6.5. They form the basis for a plethora of systems that incorporate Lorenzen’s rules for logical constants. Stepping somewhat back in time, the chapter then shifts in Sect. 6.6 to another kind of formal dialectic: one of Hamblin’s original systems. Hamblin’s approach is explained and illustrated by an extensive example. On the basis of an understanding of Hamblin’s work, it will be relatively easy to deal, in Sect. 6.7, with the approach Woods and Walton deployed in a number of coauthored papers and, in Sect. 6.8, with some of Mackenzie’s ingenious systems. Chapter 6 closes with, in Sect. 6.9, an exposition of the integration of the Lorenzen approach and the Hamblin approach effected by Walton and Krabbe and with a concluding Sect. 6.10 on the semiformal method of “profiles of dialogue.”

ABSTRACT This chapter sketches the origin as well as the further development of the disciplines of dialectic, logic, and rhetoric in antiquity. For the beginnings of dialectic and logic, the chapter turns in Sect. 2.2 to Zeno’s reductio technique and Plato’s three forms of dialectic, for those of rhetoric to the Sophists and the educator Isocrates. The chapter discusses Aristotle’s contributions to all three disciplines mentioned. In Sect. 2.3 Aristotle’s theory of dialectic is discussed. The fundamental features of the ancient discussion procedure are explained, the construction of argumentation by means of topoi (argument schemes), and tactical issues concerning debates. Sect. 2.4 is devoted to Aristotle’s fallacy theory. The theory of topics of Cicero and Boethius is discussed in Sect. 2.5. Sect. 2.6 explains Aristotle’s syllogistic – a precursor of predicate logic. Sect. 2.7 deals with Stoic logic – a precursor of propositional logic. Aristotle’s systematic reflections on rhetoric as the art of finding the appropriate means of persuasion are the topic of attention in Sect. 2.8. Sect. 2.9 deals with the classical system of rhetoric, which developed after Aristotle’s time. The system is illustrated by going systematically through the consecutive tasks a speaker has to accomplish in preparation of the actual performance of a speech. In Sect. 2.10, finally, the ancient achievements are tied in with later developments and shown to relate to the various approaches to argumentation developed in present-day argumentation theory.

ABSTRACT This chapter discusses developments which have taken place, more or less independently, outside the research traditions treated in the earlier chapters. First, attention is paid to research in some disciplines and research programs that connect with argumentation theory and may even have some overlap with it. In Sect. 12.2 critical discourse analysis is discussed, in Sect. 12.3 historical controversy analysis, in Sect. 12.4 persuasion research and related quantitative research projects, and in Sect. 12.5 studies stemming from relevance theory which promote an argumentative turn in cognitive psychology. The next chapters concentrate on developments in argumentation research that have taken place in non-Anglophone parts of the world, in which research results are often published in other languages than English. Concentrating on contributions which have not yet been discussed in other chapters, in Sect. 12.6 an overview of argumentation research in the Nordic countries is given, in Sect. 12.7 of argumentation studies in German-speaking areas, and in Sect. 12.8 of argumentation studies in Dutch-speaking areas. The study of argumentation in French-speaking areas is discussed in Sect. 12.9, and the study of argumentation in Italian-speaking areas in Sect. 12.10. The next areas focused on are Eastern Europe, in Sect. 12.11, and Russia and other parts of the former USSR, in Sect. 12.12. Section 12.13 is devoted to the state of the art in argumentation theory in Spanish-speaking areas and Sect. 12.14 to the state of the art in Portuguese-speaking areas. Next, in Sect. 12.15 argumentation research in Israel is discussed, and in Sect. 12.16 argumentation research in the Arab world. The chapter concludes with an overview of the study of argumentation in Japan in Sect. 12.17 and an overview of the study of argumentation in China in Sect. 12.18.

ABSTRACT This chapter contains an introduction into argumentation theory. In Sect. 1.1, the topic of research is introduced. Starting from the meaning of the word “argumentation” in ordinary language, a more technical definition is provided of the termargumentation as it is for research purposes used in argumentation theory. In this definition, argumentation is connected with communication, interaction, accountability, and reasonableness. In Sect. 1.2, the descriptive and the normative dimensions of argumentation theory are distinguished. The various components of the research program that needs to be carried out to combine the descriptive and normative interests are described. Apart from philosophical and theoretical research concentrating on the standards of reasonableness and empirical research, concentrating on the description of argumentative reality, to bring the two dimensions together, analytical research is required, followed by practical research aimed at exploiting the insights gained for improving methodically the analysis, evaluation, and production of argumentative discourse. In Sect. 1.3, some crucial concepts in argumentation theory are discussed: “standpoints,” “unexpressed premises,” “argument schemes,” “argumentation structures,” and “fallacies.” It is explained that in the various approaches to argumentation, these concepts may be conceived in somewhat different ways. In Sect. 1.4, the main approaches are distinguished that have developed throughout the history of argumentation theory. The overview starts with the classical approaches to logic, dialectic and rhetoric in Antiquity, and the neoclassical approaches manifested in modern logic, the Standard treatment of the fallacies as explained by Hamblin, the analysis of controversy proposed by Crawshay-Williams, and Naess’s semantic analysis of differences of opinion and the reasons put forward to resolve them. Next, the still influential theoretical perspectives are discussed that were proposed by Toulmin in his model of argumentation and by Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca in the new rhetoric. In the next chapters, the theoretical approaches to argumentation are explained that have been developed after Toulmin and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca published their influential proposals: first the various kinds of formal approaches, such as formal dialectic, and then informal logic, communication studies and rhetoric, the linguistic approaches developed in French-speaking and Italian-speaking parts of the world, the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation, the recent interaction of argumentation theory and artificial intelligence, and the contributions from other disciplines which are in some ways related to argumentation theory, such as critical discourse analysis, persuasion research, and cognitive psychology after the “argumentative turn.” In Sect. 1.5, a brief overview is presented of the content of the various chapters of the handbook.