Walton locates argument within the broader concept of
dialogue. He defines a dialogue as a verbal exchange between two parties, based
on some sort of rules, conventions or expectations (Walton, 2000). He continues
in the Aristotelian tradition of ‘formal studies’ of dialogue based on
conceptual analysis rather than empirical study. Walton quotes Hamblin to the
effect that the formal study of dialogue "consists in the setting up of
simple systems of precise but not necessarily realistic rules, and the plotting
out of the properties of the dialogues that might be played out in accordance
with them." (Hamblin, 1970, pp 256). Whilst in Walton’s formal dialogues
the rules are laid down precisely, in actual dialogues it is not always clear
what the rules are. The idea is that this formal analysis of types of dialogue
can be a useful framework for analysing actual dialogues.
Walton (2000) classifies many different types of dialogue
that represent different kinds of goal-directed conversations in which
argumentation is used to contribute to the goal of the dialogue. Six basic
types of dialogue are described in the new dialectic. The properties of these
six types of dialogue are summarized below.
Types of dialogue according to Walton (2000)
Argumentation, according to Walton (2000), is when one party
takes the commitments of the other as premises, and then by a series of steps
of inference, uses these principles in arguments that aim towards proving an
ultimate conclusion to the other party. Although he describes several types of
argumentative dialogue they are all then really variations on persuasion. Maybe
we could argue that Walton’s theory encompasses the steps to critical
discussion within each type of dialogue. Also the steps that are predominant
within each type of argument can vary.
No comments:
Post a Comment