Argumentation最新文献_第4页

The Role of Culture in Shaping Chinese Argumentation Theories: A Comparison of Argumentation in Chinese and Greco-Roman Classical Rhetorical Traditions 文化在中国议论文理论形成中的作用：中国与希腊罗马古典修辞传统议论文的比较

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-06-08 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09662-3

Xi Li

引用次数: 0

Foregoing Charity in the Classroom 在课堂上放弃慈善

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-06-03 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09665-0

Kamil Lemanek

引用次数: 0

The Evolution of Bianzheng in Modern Chinese Argumentation: From Reasoning to Correlation 现代汉语论证中的变正演变：从推理到关联

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-06-03 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09664-1

Lingling Xia, Lu Liu

{"title":"The Evolution of Bianzheng in Modern Chinese Argumentation: From Reasoning to Correlation","authors":"Lingling Xia, Lu Liu","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09664-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09664-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study traces the evolutional manifestations of <i>bianzheng</i> in modern Chinese argumentative practices from the twentieth century onwards, focusing on three principal forms. The first form of <i>bianzheng</i> operates as a translational counterpart to Western dialectic, specifically engaging with Aristotelian dialectical mechanisms that prioritize inductive reasoning (epagōgē) and deductive syllogism (sullogismos). The second form of <i>bianzheng</i> deviates from this logical sense and is reconstructed philosophically mainly based on Hegelian dialectic with an integration of the worldviews of change and relation in traditional Chinese thinking. The third form of <i>bianzheng</i> is further retrofitted with traditional Chinese thinking, shifting from philosophical reconstruction to rhetorical reconstruction in Chinese argumentation with a focus on the rejection of essential readings of things and events. And this form of <i>bianzheng</i> is systematically illustrated in Chinese argumentation in the twenty-first century, embracing holism, dynamic contexts and mutual becoming of the two opposites. This paper goes further to compare cultural connotations of Aristotelian dialectic, Hegelian dialectic and the third form of <i>bianzheng</i> based on the method of “comparative cultural hermeneutics”(Ames 2023a: 119). It argues that Aristotelian dialectic and Hegelian dialectic presuppose the One negating the many and the One dominating the many respectively. Yet the third form of <i>bianzheng</i> embraces the notion of “the inseparability of the one and the many” (Ames 2021a: 218), entailing “correlative thinking”. It deals with the production of new meaning, which is realized by aspectual language.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"313 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145161643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Something We All Accept: Sincerity Conditions in Argumentation by Fiction 我们都接受的东西：小说论证中的真诚条件

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-06-02 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09661-4

Erik Vellinga

{"title":"Something We All Accept: Sincerity Conditions in Argumentation by Fiction","authors":"Erik Vellinga","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09661-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09661-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In contemporary literature on argumentation, it is well-established that various genres of fiction can be used to present argumentation. For instance, in political satires, authors argue why a certain political situation is undesirable. Similarly, authors of fables argue—by means of animals as characters—that certain behaviour is desirable or unacceptable. Characteristically, authors of fiction create a fictional world in which their narratives take place. This collides with the sincerity conditions of the speech act complex of argumentation: preliminary conditions that should be satisfied for argumentation to be performed correctly. Firstly, these sincerity conditions require the arguer to believe that their standpoint is acceptable. Second, the arguer should believe that the statements they make to justify their standpoint are acceptable and third, the arguer should believe that these statements constitute an acceptable justification of their standpoint. As such, when argumentation meets fiction, the sincerity conditions do not align: how can authors—as arguers—actually believe that their uttered statements are acceptable, if these statements are oftentimes not true? The aim of this paper is to show both how proponents can accept propositions in fiction while still following argumentation’s sincerity conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 3","pages":"335 - 355"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09661-4.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145073574","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

“Then why not Show the Evidence?” Concluding Maneuvering by Appealing to Ignorance at China’s Diplomatic Press Conferences “那为什么不出示证据呢？”中国外交新闻发布会上诉诸无知的总结策略

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-31 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09659-y

Peng Wu, Jing Ping

{"title":"“Then why not Show the Evidence?” Concluding Maneuvering by Appealing to Ignorance at China’s Diplomatic Press Conferences","authors":"Peng Wu, Jing Ping","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09659-y","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09659-y","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Drawing upon the pragma-dialectical treatment of ‘appeal to ignorance’, the neutral counterpart of the fallacious <i>argumentum ad ignorantiam,</i> this article aims to reveal how this kind of argumentative move is used as a mode of concluding maneuvering by the spokespersons in their replies at China’s diplomatic press conferences. As expounded in Wu (2019a, 2019b, 2023), in responding to the journalists’ questions, the spokespersons conduct as a matter of fact simultaneously two critical discussions: one with the critics quoted by the journalists, the other one is with the international general public that may be deemed their primary audience. The first critical discussion is instrumental to the spokespersons in convincing the international general public of their stances in the second critical discussion. As the research results show, in the critical discussion with the critics, the Chinese spokespersons prototypically use three types of appeal to ignorance in the concluding stage, while in the critical discussion with the international general public they use the appeal to ignorance in the empirical counterpart of the argumentation stage with the aim to undermining or even negating the critics’ credibility/reliability before the international general audience.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 2","pages":"171 - 192"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145171212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Japan’s Strategic Maneuvering in the Fukushima Controversy: The Argumentative Move from the Contaminated Water to the Treated Water 日本在福岛核争议中的战略机动：从污染水到处理水的争论

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-27 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09663-2

Hiroko Okuda

引用次数: 0

Chinese Argument from Qi 氣 and the Place of Ethos in the Kisceral Mode 中国的《气》论辩与民族精神在哲学模式中的地位

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-20 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09656-1

Jianfeng Wang

引用次数: 0

Latest Developments in Asian Argumentation Studies 亚洲议论文研究的最新进展

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-19 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09660-5

Peng Wu

引用次数: 0

A Case for a Reasons-Based Theory of Argument 一个基于理性的论证理论的案例

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-19 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09658-z

Hubert Marraud

引用次数: 0

One Concept of Argument 论证的一个概念

IF 1.3 2区文学

Argumentation Pub Date : 2025-05-14 DOI: 10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3

Marcin Lewiński

{"title":"One Concept of Argument","authors":"Marcin Lewiński","doi":"10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Part of the business of argumentation theory involves resolving a conceptual dispute over what argumentation and argument are in the first place. This dispute has produced various “concepts of argument.” The goal of this paper is twofold: (1) to develop a complete ontology of argumentative phenomena, capable of accounting for various conceptions of argument—something, as I argue, that is badly wanting in argumentation theory; and, within this ontology, (2) to defend a position that there is but one concept of argument needed to grasp these diverse phenomena and conceptions of argument and argumentation. I move in four steps. First, I briefly sketch the discussion over arguments-as-activities and arguments-as-products. Second, I go back to the classic work of Twardowski on actions and products and adapt it for argumentation theory, producing a complex yet systematically organized conceptual ontology of argument and argumentation. This conceptual housekeeping allows me, third, to critically engage some of the recent, Frege-inspired philosophical literature on the concept of argument, while defending act-based approaches to argument(ation). Fourth, I present a positive proposal of a minimal, contrastivist concept of argument as <i>a set of reasons advanced to support a conclusion C</i><sub><i>1</i></sub><i> rather than another conclusion C</i><sub><i>n</i></sub>.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":"39 3","pages":"393 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145073770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0