Assessing Arguments in Ordinary Speech

Abstract

Assessing arguments in ordinary discourse The accusation of amalgam The aim of this paper is to emphasize the importance of the notion of argumentative norm, including in descriptive (non normative) approaches to argumentative discourse. It focuses on situations when, in a polemic, a dissenter charges his opponent with 'amalgamating'. Such an accusation appearing in the context of ordinary (non-expert) discourse underlines the tight interconnection between, on the one hand, a critical activity relying on an ideal of rationality, culturally associated with argumentation, and, on the other hand, a refutation of the counter-discourse which supports local strategies determined by the polemic. Such an interconnection may be observed in many academic works on argumentation and undermines the viability of the 'amalgam' as a category for a critical analysis of argumentation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 48 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.