Article published In:
Pragmatics & CognitionVol. 15:2 (2007) ► pp.313–346
A theory of presumption for everyday argumentation
The paper considers contemporary models of presumption in terms of their ability to contribute to a working theory of presumption for argumentation. Beginning with the Whatelian model, we consider its contemporary developments and alternatives, as proposed by Sidgwick, Kauffeld, Cronkhite, Rescher, Walton, Freeman, Ullmann-Margalit, and Hansen. Based on these accounts, we present a picture of presumptions characterized by their nature, function, foundation and force. On our account, presumption is a modal status that is attached to a claim and has the effect of shifting, in a dialogue, a burden of proof set at a local level. Presumptions can be analysed and evaluated inferentially as components of rule-based structures. Presumptions are defeasible, and the force of a presumption is a function of its normative foundation. This picture seeks to provide a framework to guide the development of specific theories of presumption.
Cited by
Cited by 35 other publications
Aijaz, Imran, Jonathan McKeown-Green & Aness Webster
2013. Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness. Argumentation 27:3 ► pp. 259 ff. 
Bermejo-Luque, Lilian & Cristina Corredor
2017. Introduction for a Special Volume of Argumentation on Presumptions, Presumptive Inferences and Burdens of Proof. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 463 ff.
Bodlović, Petar
2017. Dialogical Features of Presumptions: Difficulties for Walton’s New Dialogical Theory. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 513 ff.
Bodlović, Petar
2019. Presumptions, and How They Relate to Arguments from Ignorance. Argumentation 33:4 ► pp. 579 ff.
Bodlović, Petar
2021. On the Differences Between Practical and Cognitive Presumptions. Argumentation 35:2 ► pp. 287 ff.
Bodlović, Petar
Burgess-Jackson, Keith
2018. Rethinking the presumption of atheism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 84:1 ► pp. 93 ff.
Corredor, Cristina
2017. Presumptions in Speech Acts. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 573 ff.
Cummings, Louise
2010. Arguing Through Uncertainty. In Rethinking the BSE Crisis, ► pp. 57 ff.
Cummings, Louise
Cummings, Louise
2015. Philosophy and Public Health. In Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty, ► pp. 19 ff.
Fiedler, Antje, Benjamin Fath & D Hugh Whittaker
2021. The Dominant Narrative of the New Zealand–China Free Trade Agreement: Peripheral Evidence, Presumptive Tilt and Business Realities. New Political Economy 26:3 ► pp. 328 ff.
Galloway, Lauren F. E.
2020. “A Conspiracy of the Nation”: Case Study of Stokely Carmichael’s and H. Rap Brown’s Arguments in Support of Black Power. Journal of Black Studies 51:1 ► pp. 83 ff.
Gama, Raymundo
2017. The Nature and the Place of Presumptions in Law and Legal Argumentation. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 555 ff.
Godden, David
2017. Presumption as a Modal Qualifier: Presumption, Inference, and Managing Epistemic Risk. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 485 ff.
Godden, David
2022. On the Normativity of Presumptions: Contrasting Kauffeld’s and Whatelian Accounts. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 261 ff.
Gonnerman, Chad, Kaija Mortensen & Jacob Robbins
2021. KNOWING HOW as a philosophical hybrid. Synthese 199:3-4 ► pp. 11323 ff.
Hassan, Inas Hussein & Sara Yahya ElMansy
2023. Between Marvel’s Cinematic Universe and Instagram Narratives: Multimodal Argumentation in Arab Netizens’ Perlocutionary Acts Towards Captain America 4 . Journal of Ethnic and Cultural Studies ► pp. 189 ff.
Hoefer, Rolf L. & Sandy E. Green
2016. A Rhetorical Model of Institutional Decision Making: The Role of Rhetoric in the Formation and Change of Legitimacy Judgments. Academy of Management Review 41:1 ► pp. 130 ff.
Kampka, Agnieszka & Marta Kobylska
2023. Theorizing rhetoric: A transatlantic perspective. Language & Communication 93 ► pp. 43 ff.
Larson, Brian N. & David Seth Morrison
2023. Reconceiving Argument Schemes as Descriptive and Practically Normative. Argumentation 37:4 ► pp. 601 ff.
Lebens, Samuel
2021. Missing, Presumed Not Dead. Philosophia 49:3 ► pp. 1043 ff.
Lewiński, Marcin
2017. Argumentation Theory Without Presumptions. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 591 ff.
MACAGNO, FABRIZIO & DOUGLAS WALTON
2012. Presumptions in Legal Argumentation. Ratio Juris 25:3 ► pp. 271 ff.
Mehlenbacher, Ashley Rose, Randy Allen Harris & Chrysanne Di Marco
2017. Rhetorical figures as argument schemes – The proleptic suite. Argument & Computation 8:3 ► pp. 233 ff.
Moldovan, Andrei
2016. Presumptions in Communication. Studia Humana 5:3 ► pp. 104 ff.
Neville-Shepard, Ryan
2018. Paranoid Style and Subtextual Form in Modern Conspiracy Rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal 83:2 ► pp. 119 ff.
Neville-Shepard, Ryan
2019. Post-presumption argumentation and the post-truth world: on the conspiracy rhetoric of Donald Trump. Argumentation and Advocacy 55:3 ► pp. 175 ff.
Paglieri, Fabio & Cristiano Castelfranchi
2014. Trust, relevance, and arguments. Argument & Computation 5:2-3 ► pp. 216 ff.
Plumer, Gilbert
2017. Presumptions, Assumptions, and Presuppositions of Ordinary Arguments. Argumentation 31:3 ► pp. 469 ff.
Ricco, Robert B.
2011. Individual differences in distinguishing licit from illicit ways of discharging the burden of proof. Journal of Pragmatics 43:2 ► pp. 616 ff.
Rodríguez-Nieto, Camilo Andrés, Jonathan Alberto Cervantes-Barraza & Vicenç Font Moll
2023. Exploring mathematical connections in the context of proof and mathematical argumentation: A new proposal of networking of theories. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 19:5 ► pp. em2264 ff.
Von Burg, Ron
2017. The Supreme Court cleans the air: legal and scientific standards for argument in Massachusetts v. EPA. Argumentation and Advocacy 53:1 ► pp. 41 ff.
Witek, Maciej
2021. Illocution and accommodation in the functioning of presumptions. Synthese 198:7 ► pp. 6207 ff.
Yu, Forest
2022. Putting the ‘presumption’ back in the ‘presumption of innocence’. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 26:4 ► pp. 342 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 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.