Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Arguments

What is arguing?
by

Henrik Juel

on 27 November 2015

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Arguments

Analyzing Arguments -

Henrik Juel
Roman Jakobson:
6 communicative functions:
The basic Toulmin Model:

Data Claim


Warrant

The Toulmin Model:

Data Claim


Warrant

Wilkinson is guilty
Two officers saw him
driving too fast
When you are driving too fast, then you are guilty
The Toulmin Model
old and new
(Henrik's)
Danish terms:
Data Claim
Belæg Påstand
Begrundelse

Pointe

Warrant
Hjemmel
Grundantagelse

The Toulmin Model
with new arrows (Henrik Juel version)

Data Claim
Specific observation, The point I
premis or "relevant want to make
fact"




Warrant
General rule, norm, accepted idea

It is your turn to do the dishes!

Saddam Hussein has weapons
of mass destruction!

"Nous sommes en guerre"
(We are at war)

Not all said
Backward reasoning
Not explicit what place
Reasons given//motives
No logical frame inside
Arguments within arguments
Ambiguity, irony, change focus

New book in Danish,
Henrik Juel (ed.):
Hvor er Pointen?
-Kommunikationsfaglige
vinkler på argumentation.
Handelshøjskolens Forlag, 2011.
Impute (misrepresent your opponent
Red herring (introduce stinking case)
Bad company (bad guys also claim that)
Smoke screen (talk a lot to hide truth)
Boost detail (in your favour, forget the rest)
Open door (argue for what we all agree on)
Gallery (cater for the lowest taste)
Old saying (seems to add credibility)
Bogey (knock down a scare crow)
Change subject (to where you are stronger)
Dirty tricks

Areté (virtue)
Audience
Pathos (emotions)
Topic
Logos (subject matter, reason)
Speaker
Ethos
(character)
3 main types of appealing (being convincing):
We can do many things with language (and other means of communication). Our statements can be - among many other things - "referential" i.e. they try to describe, reveal or create a case, the world, a subject matter. But not all language use is about stating facts or arguments.
An argument can be defined as two or more statements (premisses) that together supports a third
(a conclusion).

We use arguments in an attempt to show that our claim or point of view is not just an isolated or random, crazy statement, but that is part of a nicely ordered whole and in agreement with the true state of affairs and proper opinions and values

All (3 or more) parts of an argument are rarely explicitly stated - but might be (re-)constructed in the analysis
We use arguments in both scientific discourse, public debate, private discussions, and heated quarrels (word-fights). We cannot help using some sort of logic - even when we are furious or mistaken about facts or have strange values and priorities. Logic is basic - but it does not help us in finding good reasons.
Very often we orient ourselves in the world and in discussions by applying some general rule or norm to a specific case or observation and from there try to conclude (or reinforce/justify our claim or original point).
Fronesis (knowledge)
Eunoia (benevolence)
Toulmin's first illustration
Les Données
La Conclusion
La Garantie
or
Critical analysis is difficult but important because:
(that might however be effective)
Full transcript