Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Publication Date: | 2020 |
| Other Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | eng |
| Source: | Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| Download full: | http://hdl.handle.net/10362/116025 |
Summary: | UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 TUBITAK/0010/2014 |
| id |
RCAP_d859bf8dd4a55274b76f350da751ef8a |
|---|---|
| oai_identifier_str |
oai:run.unl.pt:10362/116025 |
| network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
| network_name_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository_id_str |
https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/7160 |
| spelling |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis:A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of TopicsArgumentation theorydiscourse analysisinferencediscussiontopoiUIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 TUBITAK/0010/2014The inferential relation drawn between a reason and a claim constitutes the basis of all argument approaches and models. This article conducts a concept-based comparative literature review that aims to compile and compare four contemporary argument models that are used in the analysis of everyday discourse: the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics. Argumentation theory and models are inspired, on the one hand, by discursive approaches in the emphasis put on the content and context, and on the other, from analytical philosophy and logic in the application of rational norms and standards. Before examining the four models, developed in the framework of argumentation theory, the article positions the argument approach between the social constructionist and empirical approach of discourse analysis and the formal and normative approach of logic. In examining the four argument models and their analytical reconstruction operations, it seeks to clarify their approach to inferential relations in everyday communication and illustrate their analytical differences. Throughout the four sections, schematic illustrations of how each model reconstructs a simple everyday argument are thus provided. In the conclusion, the models are compared discussing the type of studies each model is most suitable for and the cases for which each can be used most fruitfully.Instituto de Filosofia da NOVA (IFILNOVA)RUNUzelgun, Mehmet AliKucukural, OnderOruc, Raluni2021-04-22T22:47:30Z20202020-01-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article34application/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10362/116025eng2636-8943PURE: 29333982https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP)instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiainstacron:RCAAP2024-05-22T17:52:04Zoai:run.unl.pt:10362/116025Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireinfo@rcaap.ptopendoar:https://opendoar.ac.uk/repository/71602025-05-28T17:23:02.467814Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologiafalse |
| dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: A Review and Comparison of the Toulmin Model, Pragma-Dialectics, Political Discourse Analysis, and Argumentum Model of Topics |
| title |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| spellingShingle |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: Uzelgun, Mehmet Ali Argumentation theory discourse analysis inference discussion topoi |
| title_short |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| title_full |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| title_fullStr |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| title_sort |
Four Approaches in Argumentation Analysis: |
| author |
Uzelgun, Mehmet Ali |
| author_facet |
Uzelgun, Mehmet Ali Kucukural, Onder Oruc, Raluni |
| author_role |
author |
| author2 |
Kucukural, Onder Oruc, Raluni |
| author2_role |
author author |
| dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Instituto de Filosofia da NOVA (IFILNOVA) RUN |
| dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Uzelgun, Mehmet Ali Kucukural, Onder Oruc, Raluni |
| dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Argumentation theory discourse analysis inference discussion topoi |
| topic |
Argumentation theory discourse analysis inference discussion topoi |
| description |
UIDB/00183/2020 UIDP/00183/2020 TUBITAK/0010/2014 |
| publishDate |
2020 |
| dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2020 2020-01-01T00:00:00Z 2021-04-22T22:47:30Z |
| dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
| dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| format |
article |
| status_str |
publishedVersion |
| dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://hdl.handle.net/10362/116025 |
| url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10362/116025 |
| dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
| language |
eng |
| dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
2636-8943 PURE: 29333982 https://doi.org/10.26650/CONNECTIST2020-0666 |
| dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
| eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
| dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
34 application/pdf |
| dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) instname:FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia instacron:RCAAP |
| instname_str |
FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| instacron_str |
RCAAP |
| institution |
RCAAP |
| reponame_str |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| collection |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) |
| repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositórios Científicos de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (RCAAP) - FCCN, serviços digitais da FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia |
| repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
info@rcaap.pt |
| _version_ |
1833596657379311616 |