Writing in Argumentation Theory
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Argumentation theory. (Discuss) Proposed since December 2024. |
Writing in Argumentation Theory is the study of how conclusions are reached through logical reasoning and persuasive discourse.[1] Argumentation involves constructing, analyzing, and evaluating arguments to convince others of a particular standpoint or to reach mutual understanding.[2] In written form, argumentation is essential across various domains, including academic writing, legal reasoning, and public discourse.[3] It enables individuals to present ideas coherently, support claims with evidence, and engage critically with differing viewpoints.[4]
History of written argumentation
[edit]The roots of written argumentation trace back to ancient civilizations, notably in Greek and Roman societies where rhetoric was a fundamental component of education. Aristotle's Rhetoric (circa 4th century BCE) is one of the earliest works examining the art of persuasion, laying the groundwork for later argumentation theories.[5] During the Middle Ages, scholars like Thomas Aquinas further developed argumentative writing within theological and philosophical contexts.
Between the 15th and 19th centuries, argumentation theory underwent significant transformations influenced by the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and the rise of scientific thinking. The Renaissance humanist Petrus Ramus (1515–1572) challenged traditional Aristotelian logic by advocating for a more simplified and practical approach to dialectic and rhetoric.[6] In his works, Ramus restructured the trivium—grammar, rhetoric, and logic—emphasizing rhetoric's role in effective communication and argumentation.
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) introduced a new method of reasoning based on empirical observation and inductive logic in his work Novum Organum (1620). Bacon's emphasis on inductive reasoning laid the groundwork for the scientific method, promoting a systematic approach to forming arguments based on evidence gathered from experimentation and observation.[7]
In 1662, Antoine Arnauld and Pierre Nicole published Logique de Port-Royal (commonly known as the Port-Royal Logic). This work integrated Cartesian philosophy with traditional logic, focusing on clarity of thought and the use of reason in argumentative discourse.[8] Traditional logic, rooted in Aristotelian principles, emphasized syllogistic structures for validating arguments. By incorporating Cartesian ideas like methodological skepticism and rational clarity, Port-Royal Logic marked a further advancement in argumentation theory, highlighting a balance between deductive structures and pragmatic clarity.
During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) explored the limits and capacities of human reason. In Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Kant examined the structures of rational thought, affecting how arguments were constructed and understood.[9] His work contributed to the development of epistemology and had lasting impacts on argumentation by questioning the nature of knowledge and reasoning.
The 19th century continued to expand on these foundations with the rise of formal logic and the study of fallacies. Richard Whately's Elements of Logic (1826) revived interest in Aristotelian logic, adapting it to modern contexts and emphasizing its practical applications in argumentation and rhetoric.[10] Whately's work became a standard textbook, shaping the teaching of logic and argumentation in English-speaking countries.
In the modern era, argumentation theory evolved significantly with the advent of formal logic and the study of reasoning. Stephen Toulmin's The Uses of Argument (1958) marked a pivotal moment by challenging the dominance of formal logic in understanding everyday arguments.[11] Toulmin introduced a model emphasizing practical reasoning, highlighting how real-world arguments function beyond strict logical structures.
The latter half of the 20th century saw the rise of informal logic and critical thinking movements. Scholars like Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced The New Rhetoric (1969), which emphasized argumentation in practical contexts.[12] Additionally, the development of pragma-dialectics by Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst provided a systematic approach to argumentative discourse, focusing on resolving differences of opinion through critical discussion.[13]
Theories regards to written argumentation
[edit]Formal Logic
[edit]Formal logic focuses on the structural validity of arguments using symbolic representation. It deals with deductive reasoning where conclusions necessarily follow from premises. While essential in mathematics and computer science, its applicability to everyday argumentation is limited due to its abstraction from context.[2]
Informal Logic
[edit]Informal logic addresses reasoning in natural language, concentrating on the content and context of arguments.[1] It involves the analysis of argumentation fallacies, reasoning patterns, and the effectiveness of persuasive techniques in ordinary discourse.[3]
Toulmin Model of Argumentation
[edit]Main article: Stephen Toulmin
Proposed by Stephen Toulmin, this model outlines components of practical arguments, including the claim, data (evidence), warrant (justification), backing, qualifier, and rebuttal.[2] It is widely used in teaching argumentative writing and analyzing real-life arguments.[2]
Pragma-Dialectics
[edit]Main article: Pragma-dialectics
Developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst, this approach combines pragmatic aspects of language use with dialectical structures to evaluate argumentative discourse. It sets out rules for critical discussion aimed at resolving differences of opinion constructively.
Rhetorical Argumentation
[edit]Stemming from classical rhetoric, this type emphasizes the persuasive aspects of argumentation, focusing on ethos (credibility), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning). It is concerned with the effectiveness of arguments in influencing an audience.[3]
Cognitive Approaches
[edit]Main article: Elaboration likelihood model
Cognitive approaches examine how psychological processes affect argumentation.[14] The Elaboration Likelihood Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) explores how individuals are persuaded either through central (deep processing) or peripheral (surface characteristics) routes.[14]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Perelman, Chaim; Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
- ^ a b c d Toulmin, Stephen (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b c Elbow, Peter (2001). Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Johns, Ann M. (1997). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice. London: Routledge.
- ^ Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press.
- ^ Ramus, P. (2010). Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintilian: Translation and Text of Peter Ramus's Rhetoricae Distinctiones in Quintilianum. (C. Newlands, Trans.). Pennsylvania State University Press.
- ^ Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon. (L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Arnauld, A., & Nicole, P. (1996). Logic or the Art of Thinking (The Port-Royal Logic). (J. V. Buroker, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Whately, R. (1963). Elements of Logic. D. Appleton and Company.
- ^ Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
- ^ Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
- ^ van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press.
- ^ a b Petty, Richard E.; Cacioppo, John T. (1986). "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion". Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 19: 123–205.