Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this investigation is to explore the role of argumentation schemes in enthymeme reconstruction. This aim is pursued by studying selected cases of incomplete arguments in natural language discourse to see what the requirements are for filling in the unstated premises and conclusions in some systematic and useful way. Some of these cases are best handled using deductive tools, while others respond best to an analysis based on defeasible argumentations schemes. The approach is also shown to work reasonably well for weak arguments, a class of arguments that has always been difficult to analyze without the principle of charity producing a straw man.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Michael Burke (1985) ArticleTitle‘Unstated Premises’ Informal Logic 7 107–118

    Google Scholar 

  • F. Myles Burnyeat (1994) ‘Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion’ Furley. David J. Nehemas. Alexander (Eds) Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays. Princeton University Press Princeton 3–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandra. Carberry (1990) Plan Recognition in Natural Language Dialogue MIT Press Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Irving M. Copi (1986) Introduction to Logic EditionNumber7 Macmillan New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert H. Ennis (1982) ArticleTitle‘Identifying Implicit Assumptions’ Synthese 51 61–86 Occurrence Handle10.1007/BF00413849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis Robert H. ‘Argument Appraisal Strategy: A Comprehensive Approach’, Informal Logic 21(2): 97–140

  • Thomas B. Farrell (2000) ‘Aristotle’s Enthymeme as Tacit Reference’ Gross. Alan G. Walzer. Arthur E. (Eds) Rereading Aristotle’s Rhetoric. University Press Carbondale, IL 93–106

    Google Scholar 

  • James B. Freeman (1995) ‘The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge’ Hansen. Hans V. Pinto. Robert C. (Eds) Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. The Pennsylvania State University Press University Park, PA 263–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Bart. Garssen (2001) ‘Argumentation Schemes’ Eemeren Fransvan (Eds) Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam 81–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Susanne. Gerritsen (2001) ‘Unexpressed Premises’ Eemeren. Frans van (Eds) Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam 51–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael. Gilbert (1991) ArticleTitle‘The Enthymeme Buster’ Informal Logic 13 159–166

    Google Scholar 

  • James. Gough Tindale. Christopher (1985) ArticleTitle‘Hidden or Missing Premises’ Informal Logic 7 99–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Trudy. Govier (1992) A Practical Study of Argument EditionNumber3 Wadsworth Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Leo. Groarke (1999) ArticleTitle‘Deductivism Within Pragma-Dialectics’ Argumentation 13 1–16 Occurrence Handle10.1023/A:1007771101651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groarke Leo. (2001). ‘Argumentation Schemes in Pedagogy and AI’, in Proceedings of the OSSA’2001 Conference on Argument and its Applications, Windsor, Ontario

  • Hastings Arthur C. (1963). A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation, PhD Dissertation. Evanston, IL

  • Jaakko. Hintikka (1979) ArticleTitle‘Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model’ Erkenntnis 38 355–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaakko. Hintikka (1992) ArticleTitle‘The Interrogative Model of Inquiry as a General Theory of Argumentation’ Communication and Cognition 25 221–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaakko. Hintikka (1993) ArticleTitle‘Socratic Questioning, Logic and Rhetoric’ Revue Internationale de Philosophie 1 IssueID184 5–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaakko. Hintikka (1995) ArticleTitle‘The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry’ Dialectica 49 229–249 Occurrence HandleMR1395199

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock David. ‘Deduction, Induction, and Conduction’. Informal Logic Newsletter iii(2): 7–15

  • David. Hitchcock (1985) ArticleTitle‘Enthymematic Arguments’ Informal Logi. 7 83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Patrick J. Hurley (2000) A Concise Introduction to Logic Wadsworth Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sally. Jackson Jacobs. Scott (1980) ArticleTitle‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Bases for the Enthymeme’ Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 251–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralph H. Johnson (2000) Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • John R. Josephson Josephson. Susan G. (1994) Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology Cambridge University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfr Kienpointner et al. (1987) ‘Towards a Typology of Argument Schemes’ Eemeren. Frans H. Particlevan (Eds) Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Foris Dordrecht 275–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Manfr Kienpointner (Eds) (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern Fromman-Holzboog Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Willam. Kneale Kneale. Martha (1962) The Development of Logic Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenat Douglas. (1995). ‘Cyc: A Large-Scale Investment in Knowledge Infrastructure’. Communications of the ACM 38(11)

  • Mann William., Sandra Thompson. (1987). ‘Rhetorical Structure Theory’, Text 8

  • Peirce Charles S. (1965). in Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.). Collected Papers of Charles S. Peirce, Vol. II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Chaim. Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca. Lucie (1969) The New Rhetoric University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, IN

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert C. Pinto Blair J. Anthony Parr. Katharine E. (1993) Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian Students Scarborough Ontario, Prentice Hall, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken, Henry: (2002). ‘Incomplete Arguments in Legal Discourse: A Case Study’, in T.J.M. Bench-Capon, A Daskalopulu and R. Winkels (eds.). Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2002 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference, IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp. 93–102

  • Reed Chris. (1998). ‘Dialogue Frames in Agent Communication’. In: Demazeau Y. (ed). Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, IEEE Press, pp. 246–253

  • Reed Chris., Glenn Rowe. (2001). ‘Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML’, Technical Report. Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee

  • Raymond. Reiter (1980) ArticleTitle‘A Logic for Default Reasoning’ Artificial Intelligence 13 81–132 Occurrence Handle10.1016/0004-3702(80)90014-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michael. Scriven (1976) Reasoning McGraw-Hill New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkemans. Snoeck A. Francisca (2001) ‘Argumentation Structures’ Eemeren. Frans H. Particlevan (Eds) Crucial Concepts in Argumentation Theory. Amsterdam University Press Amsterdam 101–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren. van H. Frans Grootendorst. Rob (1992) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies Erlbaum Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Verheij Bart. (1996). ‘Rules, Reasons and Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat’, Doctoral Dissertation. University of Maastricht.

  • Verheij, Bart: (1999). ‘Automated Argument Assistance for Lawyers’, The Seventh International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference, ACM, New York, NY, pp 43–52. Available on bart.verheij@metajur.unimaas.nl, http://www.metajur.unimaas.nl/∼bart/.

  • Douglas. Walton (1996) Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas. Walton (1997) Appeal to Expert Opinion Penn State Press University Park, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas. Walton (2001) ArticleTitle‘Enthymemes, Common Knowledge and Plausible Inference’ Philosophy and Rhetoric. 34 93–112

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Applied Computing, University of Dundee Park, Wynd, DD1 4HN, Dundee, Scotland, U.K.

    D. Walton

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, R3B 2Eg

    C. A. Reed

Authors
  1. D. Walton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. A. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Walton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walton, D., Reed, C.A. Argumentation Schemes and Enthymemes. Synthese 145, 339–370 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6198-x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-005-6198-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation