Argumentation in Actual Practice contains a collection of topical studies about argumentative discourse in context written by argumentation scholars from a diversity of academic backgrounds. Some contributions provide general perspectives, other contributions deal with specific issues, particular types of argumentative discourse or individual argumentative speech events. The contexts in which argumentation is examined vary from politics and the media to medical, juridical, educational, commercial or military contexts, a specific academic discipline, a special issue or pertain to all kinds of contextualised argumentative discourse. The issues discussed include the interpretation and analysis of argumentation, strategic manoeuvring, argument schemes, the stock issues, the fallacies, the principle of charity and the persuasiveness of argumentative discourse. A common feature is that they are all empirically-oriented and that virtually all of them are strongly concerned with an adequate understanding of contextualised argumentative discourse and the factors that may increase or decrease its reasonableness and effectiveness.

Since the late 1950s the study of argumentation has developed from a marginal part of logic and rhetoric into a genuine interdisciplinary academic discipline. After having first been primarily concerned with creating an adequate philosophical perspective on argumentation, argumentation theorists have gradually shifted their focus of attention to a more immediate concern with the ins and outs of argumentative praxis. What exactly are the characteristics of situated argumentative discourse in different argumentative 'action types'? How is the discourse influenced by institutional and contextual constraints? In what way can prominent cases of argumentative discourse be fruitfully analysed? Argumentation in Practice aims to provide insight into some important facets of argumentative praxis and the different ways in which it can be approached. The first part of this volume, 'Conceptions of problems in argumentative practice', introduces useful theoretical perspectives. The second part, 'Empirical studies of argumentative practice', contains both empirical studies of a general kind and several types of specific case studies.

Featuring multidisciplinary and transcultural investigations, this volume showcases state-of-the-art scholarship about the impact of argumentation-based discourses and field-specific argumentation practices in a wide range of communities of practice belonging to the media, social, legal and political spheres. The investigations make use of integrative, wide-ranging theoretical perspectives and empirical research methodologies with a focus on argumentation strategies in real-life environments, both private and public, and in constantly growing virtual environments. This book brings together linguists, argumentation scholars, philosophers and communication specialists who convincingly show how interpersonal and/or intergroup interactions shape, challenge or change the argumentative practices of users, what argumentation skills and strategies become critical and consequential, how argumentative discourse contexts may stimulate or prevent critical reflection and debate, and what are the wider implications at personal, institutional and societal levels. Reaching beyond the boundaries of linguistics and argumentation sciences, this book should be a valuable resource for researchers as well as practitioners in the fields of pragmatic linguistics, argumentation studies, rhetoric, discourse analysis, political sciences and media studies.

Reproduction of the original.

Explores how we justify our beliefs - and try to influence those of others - both soundly and effectively.

This book concentrates on argumentation as it emerges in ordinary discourse, whether the discourse is institutionalized or strictly informal. Crucial concepts from the theory of argumentation are systematically discussed and explained with the help of examples from real-life discourse and texts. The basic principles are explained that are instrumental in the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse. Methodical instruments are offered for identifying differences of opinion, analyzing and evaluating argumentation and presenting arguments in oral and written discourse. In addition, the book provides a great variety of exercises and assignments to improve the students' skill in presenting argumentation. The authors begin their treatment of argumentation theory at the same juncture where argumentation also starts in practice: The difference of opinion that occasions the evolvement of the argumentation. Each chapter begins with a short summary of the essentials and ends with a number of exercises that students can use to master the material. Argumentation is the first introductory textbook of this kind. It is intended as a general introduction for students who are interested in a proper conduct of argumentative discourse. Suggestions for further reading are made for each topic and several extra assignments are added to the exercises. Special features: * A concise and complete treatment of both the theoretical backgrounds and the practice of argumentation analysis and evaluation. * Crucial concepts from pragmatics (speech act theory, Grice's cooperative principle) presented in a non-technical way; introducing the theory of verbal communication. * Unique coverage of both oral and written presentation of arguments. * Exercises and assignments based on real-life texts from a variety of contexts.

This book provides theoretical tools for evaluating the soundness of arguments in the context of legal argumentation. It deals with a number of general argument types and their particular use in legal argumentation. It provides detailed analyses of argument from authority, argument ad hominem, argument from ignorance, slippery slope argument and other general argument types. Each of these argument types can be used to construct arguments that are sound as well as arguments that are unsound. To evaluate an argument correctly one must be able to distinguish the sound instances of a certain argument type from its unsound instances. This book promotes the development of theoretical tools for this task.

Recent concerns with the evaluation of argumentation in informal logic and speech communication center around nondemonstrative arguments that lead to tentative or defeasible conclusions based on a balance of considerations. Such arguments do not appear to have structures of the kind traditionally identified with deductive and inductive reasoning, but are extremely common and are often called "plausible" or "presumptive," meaning that they are only provisionally acceptable even when they are correct. How is one to judge, by some clearly defined standard, whether such arguments are correct or not in a given instance? The answer lies in what are called argumentation schemes -- forms of argument (structures of inference) that enable one to identify and evaluate common types of argumentation in everyday discourse. This book identifies 25 argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning and matches a set of critical questions to each. These two elements -- the scheme and the questions -- are then used to evaluate a given argument in a particular case in relation to a context of dialogue in which the argument occurred. In recent writings on argumentation, there is a good deal of stress placed on how important argumentation schemes are in any attempt to evaluate common arguments in everyday reasoning as correct or fallacious, acceptable or questionable. However, the problem is that the literature thus far has not produced a precise and user-friendly enough analysis of the structures of the argumentation schemes themselves, nor have any of the documented accounts been as helpful, accessible, or systematic as they could be, especially in relation to presumptive reasoning. This book solves the problem by presenting the most common presumptive schemes in an orderly and clear way that makes them explicit and useful as precisely defined structures. As such, it will be an indispensable tool for researchers, students, and teachers in the areas of critical thinking, argumentation, speech communication, informal logic, and discourse analysis.

Scott Bader-Saye Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt Michael Baxter Daniel M. Bell Jr. Jana Marguerite Bennett Michael G. Cartwright William T. Cavanaugh Peter Dula Chris K. Huebner Kelly S. Johnson D. Stephen Long M. Therese Lysaught David Matzko McCarthy Joel James Shuman J. Alexander Sider Jonathan Tran Paul J. Wadell Theodore Walker Jr.