Topical Relevance in Argumentation
Author
It is a longstanding if not altogether coherent tradition of logic and rhetorical studies that an argument can be incorrect or fallacious in virtue of some proposition in it being “irrelevant”. This monograph clarifies that tradition. Non-classical propositional calculi, including relevance logics and relatedness logics, are juxtaposed against conversational criticisms of irrelevance in natural argumentation, e.g. in parliamentary debates. The object is to see if there is a reasonable way of evaluating criticisms like “That’s beside the point!” or “That’s irrelevant!”.
[Pragmatics & Beyond, III:8] 1982. viii, 81 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
-
1. Conversational Allegations of Irrelevance | p. 1
-
1.0 Objective of Study
-
1.1 Dual Nature of Pragmatic Analysis
-
1.2 Disputation Theory
-
1.3 Standard Preconceptions of Irrelevance
-
1.4 Fallacies of Emotional Distraction
-
1.5 Ad Misericordiam Arguments
-
1.6 A Contrastive Case Study
-
1.7 The Ad Hominem Fallacy
-
1.8 Relevant Answers to Questions
-
1.9 A Second Case Study of Question-Relevance
-
1.10 Function of Questioning in Parliamentary Debate
-
2. Propositional Inferences in Disputation | p. 20
-
2.0 Relevance in Games of Dialogue
-
2.1 Refutation and Propositional Structure
-
2.2 Classical Propositional Logic: Basic Elements
-
2.3 Valid Arguments in Classical Logic
-
2.4 Astounding Inferences in Classical Logic
-
2.5 Relatedness Propositional Logic: Basic Elements
-
2.6 Valid Arguments in Relatedness Logic
-
2.7 The Astounding Inferences Revisited
-
2.8 The Propositional Core of Disputation
-
3. Paradoxes, Sophisms and Relatedness | p. 35
-
3.0 The Meaning of Relatedness
-
3.1 Act-Sequences and Relatedness
-
3.2 Subject-Matter Contents of Propositions
-
3.3 Paradoxes and Astounding Inferences
-
3.4 Missing Factors
-
3.5 Needed Premisses in Inferences
-
3.6 Irrelevant Premisses
-
3.7 Pluralism of Concepts of Relevance
-
3.8 Information Inclusion
-
4. Criticisms of Irrelevance in Games of Dialogue | p. 56
-
4.0 Six Types of Criticisms of Irrelevance
-
4.1 Varieties of Games
-
4.2 Strong and Weak Refutation
-
4.3 Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Games
-
4.4 Misconception of Refutation
-
4.5 Pertinence
-
4.6 Question-Answer Relevance
-
4.7 Types of Questions and Answers
-
4.8 Rules for Responding
-
4.9 Types of Relevance Compared
-
4.10 Conditionals in Disputation
-
Notes | p. 75
-
-
Index | p. 80
Cited by
Cited by 22 other publications
Blair, J. Anthony
Boger, George
Campillo, Rosa María López & José Luis Gómez Ramos
Gabbay, Dov M. & John Woods
Hitchcock, David
Jacobs, Scott & Sally Jackson
Johnson, Ralph H. & Marcin Koszowy
Kienpointner, Manfred
Kienpointner, Manfred
2021. Review of van Eemeren (2018): Argumentation Theory: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Journal of Argumentation in Context 10:2 ► pp. 262 ff.
Macagno, Fabrizio & Douglas Walton
Malinowski, Jacek & Rafał Palczewski
Müller-Feldmeth, Daniel, Tamara Koch, Chantal Wanderon & Martin Luginbühl
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst
Walton, Douglas N.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Subjects
Main BIC Subject
CF: Linguistics
Main BISAC Subject
LAN009000: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General