This book systematically introduces and discusses the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) as a tool for the analysis of argument schemes employed in current argumentation studies and presents the model’s possible applications to real-life case of argumentation in context

As the title Advanced perspectives and open questions suggests, Chap. 7 critically positions the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) in a broader context by taking open questions and relevant theoretical and methodological issues into consideration. Central to this chapter is the presentation of the AMT typology of loci: each locus is described in detail and some examples are briefly discussed, by which considerations that stem from the historical overview provided in the first part of this volume are integrated. We critically explicate the rationale of the AMT typology and its limits. Other theoretical issues tackled in this chapter include the connection between semantic analysis and AMT analysis, the rationale of the locus-maxim multiple relations, a discussion on the theoretical “province” of loci and on the heuristical value of the AMT, as well as a brief opening on the AMT in argument mining.

Chapter 1 is devoted to Aristotle, the author we consider as the founder of the tradition of topics. The importance of Aristotle in relation to the study of inference in argumentation is immense: such is the finesse and richness of the Aristotelian analyses of argumentative procedures that they represent a source of copious theoretical and methodological suggestions for contemporary research on argument schemes. While presenting Aristotle’s approach, we discuss fundamental concepts concerning inference in argumentation that will be recurring in the volume, such as the definitions of inference, problem and premise, the distinction between knowledge-oriented and pragmatic argumentation, and the difference between constructive and destructive arguments. Within this network of definitions, the polysemic and central notion of topos in Aristotle’s work takes center stage.

If Aristotle is the founder of the topical tradition, Cicero and Boethius—the two authors considered in this chapter—are the pillars on which this tradition is established to last. Cicero’s Topica provides a previously unavailable univocal definition of locus, and introduces the concept of argument as well as a criterion for classifying loci, which will be applied more consistently by the authors that follow. However, the Latin author who remained a landmark throughout the following centuries, throughout the Middle Ages and beyond, is Boethius. His systematic and explicit distinction between locus maxima as the source of inference and locus differentiae maximae as the many inferential rules that can be derived from a locus, give a fresh and theoretically sound basis for a better understanding of inference in argumentation. Boethius also proposes a convincing typology of loci, based on his synthetic reinterpretation and merger of the typologies by Cicero and by a Greek scholar named Themistius.

In this chapter, our proposal for the analysis of argument schemes as based on the tradition of topoi-loci called the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT) is presented (first introduced in Rigotti and Greco 2006). We explain how the AMT represents the inferential configuration of arguments and discuss innovative aspects of the model in relation to other contemporary accounts. After having outlined the main features of the AMT as a model to analyze single argumentation, we explain how the analysis of complex argumentation can be approached through this model and discuss the advantages of the combination of different AMT analyses to explain how different arguments are combined within complex argumentation structures. Some concrete examples of analyses are provided to illustrate the model.

This chapter presents the multifaceted situation of the evolution (and involution) of the study of inference and topics after the Middle Ages, starting with the era of Renaissance Humanism. In these centuries, several figures in the cultural debate (Lorenzo Valla, Rodolphus Agricola, Philipp Melanchthon, Johannes Caesarius, Petrus Ramus—Pierre de la Ramée and Ralph Lever are part of our selection) highlighted the educational value of dialectic and topics. Some of them chose to write in vernacular languages, while others wrote in Latin; all this bears witness to a widespread cultural interest in the study of arguments in Europe. Although not all these authors go in the direction of a better understanding of inference in argumentation, some important advances and intuitions emerge in the analysis of single arguments, in the creation of new classifications of loci, and in the reinterpretation of the role of inference within and without argumentation. The chapter is closed on a somewhat negative note, as we consider the decline of the topical tradition in continental Europe.

As the final chapter of Part I of this monograph, Chap. 5 has the important task of bridging the tradition of topics with current studies on argument schemes. We tentatively include the major contributions to the study of argument schemes, starting from Richard Whately and concluding with contemporary authors. Central to our approach is a careful analysis of Hastings’ modes of reasoning (1962), as we consider this work a junction between the traditional and contemporary approaches to inference in argumentation. After Hastings, we carefully analyse contemporary approaches to argument schemes, including Kienpointner’s and Walton’s (Walton, Reed and Macagno 2008 in particular), and the approach proposed in pragma-dialectics.

By focusing on a case study of institutional argumentation in the sector of data protection and transparency, this paper offers a view on the role of institutional argumentative discourse aimed at conflict prevention in public organizations. In particular, the context we are analyzing is that of a Swiss institutional role named Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (FDPIC). Among other tasks, the person who serves as a FDPIC has the right to monitor data protection in the whole territory of the Swiss Confederation, with the possibility of issuing recommendations to subjects who are found in violation of the law on this matter. The FDPIC's role appears similar to that of ombudsmen; his or her recommendations are not binding for the parties, but they represent powerful argument-based warnings that serve the function of preventing escalation to a court proceeding. The specific nature of this type of recommendation is explored in this paper both at the level of a semantic pragmatic analysis of the speech act "to recommend", and at the level of argumentation. Integrating an argumentative level is necessary to fully explain the intended effect of this specific type of speech act of recommendation in this context. Argumentation is also advanced by the FDPIC to support his decision: by devising a comprehensive, convincing and well structured argumentative discourse, the FDPIC pursues the ultimate pragmatic goal of preventing the emergence of conflicts between citizens and legal authorities. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

In order to comply with Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws, financial intermediaries are being engaged with unprecedented communicative activities, mainly oriented at detecting suspicious activities which must be reported to the Financial Intelligence Unit. The polysemous notion of ‘suspicion’ is pivotal to these communicative activities and needs to be clarified in order to establish to what extent argumentation is involved in their fulfillment. To this purpose, we apply the method of semantic analysis developed within Congruity Theory bringing to light the different semantic values of the verb ‘to suspect’ and its lexical derivates in a corpus of ordinary English; then we compare these meanings with the actual uses of this verb in the international and national AML laws. Amongst the numerous factors contributing to the polysemy of this word, we focalize on the difference emerged between an argumentative value of ’to suspect’ and another meaning in which suspicion is reduced to a mere hunch. This suggests that there exist different types of suspicion acts which are more or less argumentative. Interestingly, anti-money laundering international standards and some national implementations seem to admit suspicions at different argumentative degrees, entailing different levels of critical assessment expected from the financial intermediary. We also identify important implications for bank’s anti-money laundering activities deriving from the different semantic traits emerged in the analysis. We conclude the paper by eliciting from the outcome of the semantic analysis a number of questions that will guide the next steps of an ongoing research project in which Swiss banks’ AML practices are investigated from an argumentative perspective.

This paper aims to single out and to highlight the fundamental tenets of Agricola's De inuentione dialectica. After the structure of the volume, its theoretical perspective and its educational concern are illustrated, Agricola's understanding of the fundamental notion of locus is expounded. In this relation his particular use of the medieval term habitudo and the exclusion of maxims, which had been the main concern of the Medieval doctrine of loci, show a certain distance from the Medieval tradition. Several innovative and constructive contributions of Agricola's work are stressed, in particular the elaboration of a new taxonomy of loci and the discovery of the relevant role played by loci not only in argumentation but also in exposition and in explanation. In this way, loci acquire the status of intentiones secundae, i.e. of meta-categorical concepts which govern the connections ensuring textual congruity. A reading of this text in the light of contemporary argumentation theory reveals a surprising topicality and richness of concrete contributions in some dialectical and rhetorical domains, like argument schemes, topical potential, and presentational techniques.

Preview this article: Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen (2012). Exploring Argumentative Contexts, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/jaic.3.2.05rig-1.gif

This paper focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments, generally referred to as argument scheme. After outlining our approach, denominated Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT, see Rigotti and Greco Morasso 2006, 2009; Rigotti 2006, 2008, 2009), we compare it to other modern and contemporary approaches, to eventually illustrate some advantages offered by it. In spite of the evident connection with the tradition of topics, emerging also from AMT's denomination, its involvement in the contemporary dialogue on argument schemes should not be overlooked. The model builds in particular on the theoretical and methodological perspective of pragma-dialectics in its extended version, reconciling dialectic and rhetoric; nevertheless, it also takes into account numerous other contributions to the study of argument schemes. Aiming at a representation of argument schemes able to monitor the inferential cohesion and completeness of arguments, AMT focuses on two components of argument scheme that could be distinguished, readapting pragma-dialectical terms, as procedural and material respectively. The procedural component is based on the semantic-ontological structure, which generates the inferential connection from which the logical form of the argument is derived. The material component integrates into the argument scheme the implicit and explicit premises bound to the contextual common ground (Rigotti 2006). In this paper, the comparison of the AMT to other approaches focuses on the inferential configuration of arguments and not on the typologies of argument schemes and on the principles they are based on, which the authors intend to tackle in a further paper.

In his extraordinarily intense and fertile research activity, reflected by an impressive number of publications, Douglas Walton has not only studied in depth numerous theoretical crucial concepts in argumentation theory but has also focused on several contexts in which argumentation occurs, considering different fields, like law (e.g. Walton 2002a, 2005c, 2008), health care (e.g. Walton 1985, 2009b), media (e.g. Walton 2007b), public discourse (e.g. Walton 2000, 2001, 2005b).

The title of the present paper might sound like a typical many-question fallacy, as it hides, under the form of a double indirect question, two standpoints. Indeed, since both standpoints are declared and as many interrogatives signal their questionable nature, what is hidden is only the relationship between the standpoints. Now, if for a certain aspect, as suggested by the word order too, the meaningfulness of the how presupposes an affirmative answer to the whether, in another perspective, the reasonableness of the whether, that is properly at issue here, totally depends on the how. In other words, my investigation aims to identify the conditions at which classical topics can be retrieved. I start recalling the context of this investigation.