Abstract
One of the crucial problems of argumentation schemes as illustrated in (Walton, Reed & Macagno 2008) is their practical use for the purpose of analyzing texts and producing arguments. The high number and the lack of a classification criterion make this instrument extremely difficult to apply practically. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure of argumentation schemes and outline a possible criterion of classification based on alternative and mutually-exclusive possibilities. Such a criterion is based not on what an argument is, but on how it can be understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means principle, which is strictly bound to the ontological structure of the conclusion and the premises. On this view, a scheme can be selected according to the intended or reconstructed purpose of an argument and the possible strategies that can be used to achieve it.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Un avvertimento indiretto una volta mi fu recapitato tramite un avvocato, nel corso di uno dei miei primi procedimenti di mafia a Palermo. Mi riferì, «nel mio interesse» (così disse …), che il suo cliente mafioso si lamentava di me perché io ero un po’ troppo «rigido», e quindi era meglio che stessi «più attento». Anche in quel caso feci la mia segnalazione per iscritto al capufficio e alla Procura di Caltanissetta.” (Ingroia 2010, p. 47).
References
Aristotle (1984). Topics (W. A. Pickard-Cambridge, Trans.). In J. Barnes (Ed.), The works of Aristotle. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blair, J. A. (2007). The “logic” informal logic. In H. V. Hansen, et al. (Eds.), Dissensus and the search for common ground CD-ROM (pp. 1–16). Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Boethius, S. (1978). De Topicis Differentiis (edited with a translation, introduction and commentary by E. Stump). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Cicero, M. T. (2003). Topica (edited with a translation, introduction and commentary by T. Reinhardt). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
De Pater, W. (1965). Les Topiques d’Aristote et la Dialectique Platonicienne. Fribourg, Germany: Éditions de St. Paul.
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32, 268–291.
Everardus, N. (1607). Loci Argumentorum legales. Venetiis: apud Matthaeum Valentinum.
Garssen, B. (2001). Argumentation schemes. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory (pp. 81–99). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Godden, D. (2005). Deductivism as an interpretive strategy: A reply to Groarke’s defense of reconstructive deductivism. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(3), 168–183.
Greenland, S. (1998). Probability logic and probabilistic induction. Epidemiology, 9, 322–332.
Green-Pedersen, N. J. (1984). The tradition of topics in the middle age. Munich, Germany: Philosophia Verlag.
Grennan, W. (1997). Informal logic. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hastings, A. (1963). A reformulation of the modes of reasoning in argumentation. Evanston, Illinois: Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.
Ingroia, A. (2010). Nel labirinto degli dèi. Milano: Il Saggiatore.
Josephson, J., & Josephson, S. (1996). Abductive inference. computation, philosophy, technology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kienpointner, M. (1992a). Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Stuttgart, Germany: Fromman-Holzboog.
Kienpointner, M. (1992b). How to classify arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation illuminated (pp. 178–188). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Kim, M., Anthony, R., & Blades, D. (2012). Argumentation as a tool to understand complexity of knowledge integration. In Proceedings of the 2nd International STEM in Education Conference—Beijing, China—24–27 November 2012 (pp. 154–160). Beijing: Beijing Normal University.
Lawson, J. (1885). The law of presumptive evidence. San Francisco: Bancroft & Co.
Lumer, C. (2011). Argument schemes—an epistemological approach. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and Community. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011 (pp. 1–32). Windsor, ON (CD ROM).
Macagno, F., & Damele, G. (2013). The dialogical force of implicit premises: Presumptions in enthymemes. Informal Logic, 33, 365–393.
Macagno, F., & Douglas, W. (2015). Classifying the patterns of natural arguments. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 48(1), 26–53.
Macagno, F., & Konstantinidou, A. (2013). What students’ arguments can tell us: Using argumentation schemes in science education. Argumentation, 27, 225–243.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014a). Emotive language in argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014b). Argumentation schemes and topical relations. In G. Gobber & A. Rocci (Eds.), Language, reason and education (pp. 185–216). Bern: Peter Lang.
Macagno, F., & Zavatta, B. (2014). Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation, 28, 453–488.
Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2009). Argumentation mining: The detection, classification and structuring of arguments in text. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL), June 8–12. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona (pp. 98–107). New York: ACM.
Mochales, R., & Moens, M. F. (2011). Argumentation mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 19, 1–22.
Nussbaum, M. (2011). Argumentation, dialogue theory and probability modeling: An alternative framework for argumentation research in education. Educational Psychology, 46, 84–106.
Peirce, C. S. (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things: The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. Edited by K.L. Ketner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Perelman, C. & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation (J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver Trans.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Poole, C. (1988). Induction does not exist in epidemiology, either. In K. J. Rothman (Ed.), Causal inference (pp. 153–161). Chestnut Hill, MA: E.R.I.
Rapanta, C., Garcia-Mila, M., & Gilabert, S. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520.
Rubinelli, S. (2009). Ars Topica. The classical technique of constructing arguments. Dordrecht: Springer.
Searle, J. (2001). Rationality in action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stump, E. (1989). Dialectic and its place in the development of medieval logic. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Toulmin, S., Rieke, R., & Janik, A. (1984). An introduction to reasoning. New York: Macmillan.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1996). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2006). Argumentative reasoning patterns. In Proceedings of 6th CMNA (Computational Models of Natural Argument) Workshop, ECAI (European Conference on Artificial Intelligence), Riva del Garda, Italy, August 28–September 1 (pp. 48–51). Trento: University of Trento Italy.
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Macagno, F. (2015). A Means-End Classification of Argumentation Schemes. In: van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B. (eds) Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory. Argumentation Library, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21103-9_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21102-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21103-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)