argumentation

(redirected from Argumentation theory)
Also found in: Dictionary, Legal, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to Argumentation theory: Cognitive dissonance theory
Graphic Thesaurus  🔍
Display ON
Animation ON
Legend
Synonym
Antonym
Related
  • noun

Synonyms for argumentation

the presentation of an argument or arguments

Synonyms for argumentation

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

References in periodicals archive ?
Reed has been working at the overlap between argumentation theory and artificial intelligence for more than 20 years, has obtained 6 million in funding, and has over 150 peer-reviewed papers in the area.
THE NECESSITY OF ANALYZING VISUAL ARGUMENT: WHAT ARGUMENTATION THEORY OFFERS
Phan Minh Dung [Dung 1993a; 1993b] develops an argumentation theory whose central notion is the acceptability of arguments.
Her main research interests are in knowledge representation and reasoning, particularly in argumentation theory, normative systems, and the semantic web.
In producing his work of ecclesiastical rhetoric, he made significant contributions to contemporary argumentation theory by laying the groundwork for the concept of the prima facie case, adoption of the principles of presumption and the burden of proof in argumentation, and providing a foundation for the principles of tests and strategic uses of evidence.
According to Johnson, argumentation theory is undergoing a needed historical revival marked by an informal logic that would be more relevant to solving practical problems than the formal and mathematical logics of the immediate past (pp.
Following an introduction, the article contains five main parts, each of which is discussed extensively: (1) descriptions of ideas from the fields of law, communication theory, and argumentation theory that analyze the nature of persuasion and the structure of persuasive messages; (2) discussion of the work of the informal logician, Stephen Toulmin, and his model for persuasive arguments; (3) exploration of ideas about argumentation and argument structure in the literature of cognitive psychology and computer science; (4) discussion of "rebuttals" as potent argumentative devices; and (5) the proposal of a new model for persuasive arguments which simultaneously builds on and modifies Toulmin's model.
But that assumption and the assertion that "by definition" assessment of arguments is in the logical mode flies in the face of a great deal of work in Argumentation Theory.
Like the other contributors to this special issue, Plug makes use of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984, 2004) and van Eemeren and Houtlosser's (2002) extension by means of the concept of strategic maneuvering.
On this last count, a turn towards the insights of argumentation theory may be helpful.
Argumentation theory is used to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments, especially common ones often found in everyday discourse.
The first two chapters serve as an introduction to the terminology and methods of argumentation theory.
This is a very common mistake in argumentation theory and Gilbert should not be judged harshly: it seems to imagine that the dependence on context is some big problem that non-deductivists have seen and deductivists are blind to.
For the analysis of the argumentation, I will make use of the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as developed by van Eemeren and Grootendorst (1984) as well as of van Eemeren and Houtlosser's (1999) concept of strategic manoeuvring.
Justice and argument: Toward development of a dialogical argumentation theory.