Argumentation Theory
Argumentation theory studies how reasoning is conducted through arguments in natural language, spanning logical structure, dialogue norms, fallacies, and rhetorical effectiveness.
Definition
Argumentation theory is the systematic study of the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments in natural language, examining their structure, dialectical conduct, and persuasive force.
Scope
This area covers the interdisciplinary study of argument that emerged in the second half of the twentieth century at the intersection of logic, rhetoric, and dialectic. It includes Toulmin's layout of argument, informal logic and the analysis of fallacies, the pragma-dialectical theory of critical discussion, and rhetorically oriented approaches such as argumentation schemes and audience-based argument. It treats both how arguments are structured and how they are evaluated.
Sub-topics
Core questions
- What is the structure of a sound argument in everyday reasoning?
- By what standards should real arguments be evaluated?
- What makes an argument fallacious?
- How do logical, dialectical, and rhetorical perspectives on argument relate?
Key concepts
- claim, data, warrant
- critical discussion
- argumentation schemes
- fallacy
- burden of proof
- field-dependence
Key theories
- The Toulmin model
- Toulmin replaces the syllogism with a functional layout—claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, rebuttal—arguing that the soundness of practical arguments is field-dependent rather than governed by formal logic alone.
- Pragma-dialectics
- Van Eemeren and Grootendorst model argumentation as a critical discussion aimed at resolving differences of opinion, defining ideal rules whose violation constitutes fallacy.
History
Modern argumentation theory was launched in 1958 by two landmark works: Toulmin's The Uses of Argument and Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's treatise. Dissatisfaction with formal logic's fit to everyday reasoning produced the informal logic movement in the 1970s, the pragma-dialectical school in the Netherlands from the 1980s, and Walton's dialogue-based and scheme-based theories, establishing argumentation as a distinct interdisciplinary field.
Debates
- Logic, dialectic, or rhetoric?
- The field debates which perspective is primary: the logical analysis of inference, the dialectical norms of reasonable discussion, or the rhetorical concern with persuading actual audiences, and how the three can be integrated.
Key figures
- Stephen Toulmin
- Frans van Eemeren
- Rob Grootendorst
- Douglas Walton
- Chaim Perelman
Related topics
Seminal works
- toulmin2003
- perelman1969
- vaneemeren2004
Frequently asked questions
- How does argumentation theory differ from formal logic?
- Formal logic studies validity in artificial languages; argumentation theory studies how people actually reason and dispute in natural language, attending to context, dialogue, audience, and the difference between valid form and reasonable persuasion.