A.F. Snoeck Henkemans

Argumentative indicators in discourse: a pragma-dialectical study

Preface. 1. The identification of argumentative indicators. 1.1 Argumentative moves and argumentative indicators. 1.2 The pragma-dialectical approach to argumentative discourse. 1.3 Organisation of this study. 2. The ideal model of a critical discussion as a theoretical framework. 2.1 Dialectical stages in a critical discussion. 2.2 Pragmatic characterisation of argumentative moves as speech acts. 2.3 Dialectical profiles for pragmatic patterns of moves. 3. Indicators of confrontation. 3.1 Dialectical confrontation profiles. 3.2 Indicators of standpoints. 3.2.1 Tools for the identification of standpoints. 3.2.2 Propositional attitude indicating and force modifying expressions. 3.3 Indicators of disputes. 3.3.1 Doubt as an indicator of a single non-mixed dispute. 3.3.2 Indicators of a mixed dispute. 3.3.3 Indicators of a qualitative multiple dispute. 4. Indicators of the distribution of the burden of proof. 4.1 The distribution of the burden of proof. 4.2 Dialectical profiles for establishing the burden of proof. 4.3 Analysing the distribution of the burden of proof. 4.3.1 Indicators of a challenge to defend a standpoint. 4.3.2 Indicators of the acceptance of a one-sided burden of proof. 4.3.3 Indicators of refusing a one-sided burden of proof. 4.3.4 Indicators of sequence issues in a two-sided burden of proof. 5. Indicators of starting points for the discussion. 5.1 The identification of starting points. 5.2 Dialectical profile for establishing a starting point. 5.3The analysis of establishing starting points. 5.3.1 Indicators of a proposal to accept a proposition as a starting point. 5.3.2 Indicators of responses to a proposal to accept a proposition as a starting point. 6. Indicators of argument schemes. 6.1 The use of argument schemes in a critical discussion. 6.2 Clues for analogy argumentation. 6.2.1 Dialectical profile for the analogy relationship. 6.2.2 Clues in the presentation of argumentation by comparison. 6.2.3 Indications in criticism of argumentation by comparison. 6.2.4 Indications in the follow-up of argumentation by comparison. 6.3 Indications for symptomatic argumentation. 6.3.1 Dialectical profile for the symptomatic relationship. 6.3.2 Indications in the presentation of symptomatic argumentation. 6.3.3 Clues in criticism of symptomatic argumentation. 6.3.4 Clues in the follow-up of symptomatic argumentation. 6.4 Indications for causal argumentation. 6.4.1 Dialectical profile for the causal relationship. 6.4.2 Clues in the presentation of causal argumentation. 6.4.3 Clues in criticism of causal argumentation. 6.4.4 Clues in the follow-up of causal argumentation. 6.5 Some complications. 7. Indicators of the argumentation structure. 7.1 Dialectical profiles for different types of complex argumentation. 7.2 Indications in the verbal presentation of arguments. 7.2.1 Univocal indications for a subordinative relationship. 7.2.2 Non-univocal indications for subordinative argumentation. 7.2.3 Univocal indications for multiplicity. 7.2.4 Non-univocal i

Argumentation. Analysis, evaluation, presentation

Contents: Preface. Introduction. Part I: Analysis. Differences of Opinion. Argumentation and Discussion. Standpoints and Argumentation. Unexpressed Standpoints and Unexpressed Premises. The Structure of Argumentation. Part II: Evaluation. The Soundness of Argumentation. Fallacies (1). Fallacies (2). Part III: Presentation. Written Argumentation. Oral Argumentation.

Complex Argumentation in a Critical Discussion

In this paper, it is explained that a dialogical approach to complex argumentation can be fruitful for solving two important problems concerning the analysis of the argumentation structure. First, such an approach makes it possible to clarify the distinction between coordinative and multiple argumentation structures, and to identify clues in the presentation for each of these structures. Second, a dialogical approach can provide a basis for dealing more adequately with refutations of counterarguments.

Reasonableness in context: Taking into account institutional conventions in the pragma-dialectical evaluation of argumentative discourse

Over the last couple of years, the pragma-dialectical research program has focused on the development of tools for the analysis and evaluation of argumentative discourse in specific institutional contexts, such as the domains of legal, political, medical, and academic communication.