2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing
  4. Volume 41, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 41, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-9775
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1236
file format pdf download PDF

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents guidelines for the analysis and evaluation of argumentation. For both of these tasks the type of standpoint is considered as a relevant factor. The conclusions are based on a critical examination of the argumentation theoretical literature regarding this type of argument and in completing and systematizing the insights drawn from it. -argumentation supporting a descriptive standpoint can only be reasonable if the appeal to the opinion of a lot of people is supplemented with an extra coordinatively linked argument. argumentation supporting a prescriptive standpoint should be treated according to its function in two contexts in which it typically occurs: advertising and politics. An analysis of the first context shows that this kind of actually consists of complex argumentation in which the appeal to the people supports an evaluative standpoint. This kind of is assessed as unreasonable, albeit for different reasons than provided in the literature. argumentation in the context of political deliberation – ‘procedural argumentation’ – is regarded as argumentation that is not inherently fallacious, but still too weak to function as the only support for a policy standpoint.

© 2019 Amsterdam University Press
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
2019-04-01
2024-11-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/15739775/41/1/10_TVT2019.1_JANS.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Andone, C.(2015). Engagement et non-engagement dans les appels à la majorité par des hommes politiques. Argumentation et analyse du discours, 15 (13 pp.).
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Eemeren F.H. van(2010). Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Extending the Pragma-dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Freeman, J.B.(1995). The appeal to popularity and presumption by common knowledge. In H.V.Hansen & R.C.Pinto (Eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Godden, D.(2008). On common ground and ad populum: Acceptance as grounds for acceptability. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 41, 101-129.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Govier, T.(2010). A Practical Study of Argument (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Johnson, R.H., & Blair, J.A.(2006). Logical Self-Defense. New York, NY: Idea Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Kahane, H.(1980), Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Uses of Logic in Everyday Life (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Minot, W.S.(1981). A rhetorical view of fallacies: Ad hominem and ad populum. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 11, 222-235.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Müller, J.W.(2016). Wat is populisme?Amsterdam: Nieuw Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Nolt, J.E.(1984). Informal Logic. Possible Worlds and Imagination. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Oswald, S., & Hart, C.(2013). Trust based on bias: Cognitive constraints on source-related fallacies. In D.Mohammed & M.Lewínski (Eds.), Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22-26 May 2013. Windsor, ON: OSSA (pp. 1-13).
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Toulmin, S., Rieke, R.D., & Janik, A.(1984). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York, NY: MacMillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Walton, D.N.(1999). Appeal to Popular Ppinion. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Walton, D.N.(2006). Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
Loading
De invloed van het standpunt op de beoordeling van ad populum-argumentatie
TvT 41, 143 (2019); https://doi.org/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
/content/journals/10.5117/TVT2019.1.010.JANS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): ad populum; advertising; deliberation; democratic decision rule; ethical and aesthetical criteria; shared starting points; type of standpoint

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error