AbstractArgument schemes are abstractions substantiating the inferential connection between premise(s) and conclusion in argumentative communication. Identifying such conventional patterns of reasoning is essential to the interpretation and evaluation of argumentation. Whether studying argumentation from a theory-driven or data-driven perspective, insight into the actual use of argumentation in communicative practice is essential. Large and reliably annotated corpora of argumentative discourse to quantitatively provide such insight are few and far between. This is all the more true for argument scheme corpora, which tend to suffer from a combination of limited size, poor validation, and the use of ad hoc restricted typologies. In the current paper, we describe the annotation of schemes on the basis of two distinct classifications: Walton’s taxonomy of argument schemes, and Wagemans’ Periodic Table of Arguments. We describe the annotation procedure for each, and the quantitative characteristics of the resulting annotated text corpora. In doing so, we extend the annotation of the preexisting US2016 corpus of televised election debates, resulting in, to the best of our knowledge, the two largest consistently annotated corpora of schemes in argumentative dialogue publicly available. Based on evaluation in terms of inter-annotator agreement, we propose further improvements to the guidelines for annotating schemes: the argument scheme key, and the Argument Type Identification Procedure.

This paper shows how Whately’s view of presumption as a preoccupation of the ground plays an indispensable role in the study of persuasive aspects of appeals to authority and deference. This is done by showing how important connections among arguments from authority, presumption, burden of proof, and deference can be precisely defined, combined, and fitted into a formal argumentation framework for responding to arguments from expert opinion and analyzing the ad verecundiam fallacy. As the inquiry into Whately’s ideas also reveals links between Aristotelian topics and dialectic later brought out by Perelman, it constitutes an illustration showing how the study of various historically important rhetorical ideas allows us to develop contemporary models of arguments.

AbstractThe representation and classification of the structure of natural arguments has been one of the most important aspects of Aristotelian and medieval dialectical and rhetorical theories. This traditional approach is represented nowadays in models of argumentation schemes. The purpose of this article is to show how arguments are characterized by a complex combination of two levels of abstraction, namely, semantic relations and types of reasoning, and to provide an effective and comprehensive classification system for this matrix of semantic and quasilogical connections. To this purpose, we propose a dichotomous criterion of classification, transcending both levels of abstraction and representing not what an argument is but how it is understood and interpreted. The schemes are grouped according to an end-means criterion, 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.

Research Article| January 01 2009 Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories Fabrizio Macagno; Fabrizio Macagno Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Douglas Walton Douglas Walton Search for other works by this author on: This Site Google Philosophy & Rhetoric (2009) 42 (2): 154–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/25655348 Cite Icon Cite Share Icon Share Twitter Permissions Search Site Citation Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton; Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy & Rhetoric 1 January 2009; 42 (2): 154–182. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/25655348 Download citation file: Zotero Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All Scholarly Publishing CollectivePenn State University PressPhilosophy & Rhetoric Search Advanced Search The text of this article is only available as a PDF. Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University2009The Pennsylvania State University Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.

With Good Reason. S. Morris Engel, Nev York; St. Martin's Press, 1976; and Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric. Howard Kahane. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1971. The Rhetoric of Renaissance Poetry. Eds. Thomas O. Sloan and Raymond B. Waddington. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1974. A Review and Counter‐Review: Poetics, Rhetoric, and Logic: Studies in the Basic Disciplines of Criticism. Wilbur Samuel Howell, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1975.