Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective

Rational argument, rational inference

“…Argumentation researchers have tended to focus on 'argument' in this latter sense, including in the context of the fallacies (e.g. Walton 1995;Rips 2002;van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004;Neuman, Weinstock, and Glasner 2006;van Eemeren, Garssen, andMeuffels 2009, 2012). One central concern for argumentation researchers has been the identification of the procedural norms and conventions that govern different types of such dialogues, including, in particular, 'rational debate'; though much of that work has been purely theoretical, there is an increasing interest in empirical, psychological investigation of the extent to which people endorse these norms and are aware of their violation in everyday exchanges (Christmann, Mischo, and Groeben 2000;van Eemeren et al 2009van Eemeren et al , 2012Hoeken et al 2012).…”

“…van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004;van Eemeren et al 2009van Eemeren et al , 2012; also, differing views obtained about the meaning and status of concepts such as the burden of proof (see e.g. Bailenson and Rips 1996;2001;van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004;Oaksford 2007b, 2012). …”

Evidently epistential adverbs are argumentative indicators: A corpus-based study

“…In sentiment analysis these adverbs are considered as indicators of degrees of commitment and belief [4,37], while their evidential function is neglected. In argumentation theory they are treated either as indicators of the degree of support that the arguments offer to the conclusion [8] or as indicators of the degree of the speaker's epistemic commitment to the standpoint [40,41]. In both frameworks, different expressions pertaining to epistemic certainty are considered roughly equivalent.…”

“…First, heteroglossic strategies work as rhetorical strategies in the sense that they allow the speaker to position his point of view in alignment or in disalignment with other viewpoints. Second, this negotiation of stances is at the core both of the confrontation stage and the opening stages of a critical discussion [41] where participants respectively establish their disagreement space as well as their common beliefs. According to Appraisal Theory epistentials inherently work as heteroglossic strategies: modals point to the presence of a set of alternatives opening up a dialogic space to account for any of them; evidentials point to the presence of sources of information which are communicatively relevant only if considered in an interpersonal perspective.…”

A Discursive and Interactional Approach to Argumentation

“…La « Logique substantielle » de Toulmin (1958) et la « Logique Informelle » (Blair et Johnson 1980, Walton 1996 proposent des approches de l'argumentation comme étude des formes de raisonnement, reconnaissant la validité conditionnelle d'enchaînements autres que déductifs et inductifs. La pragma-dialectique ( van Eemeren et Grootendorst 2004) a développé une théorie générale de l'argumentation comme dialogue réglé orienté vers l'élimination des différences d'opinion, ce qui est un des usages essentiels de l'argumentation. Ces master theories de l'argumentation sont les références constitutives du champ contemporain des argumentation studies.…”