« Argumentation Schemes » and « Means of Persuasion »

Toulmin, Rieke, Janik distinguish nine forms of argumentation, «most frequently to be met with in practical situations” (1984, p. 147-155),

Analogy                                     Dilemma                             Generalization
Classification                           Sign                                        Opposites
Cause                                        Degree[*]                             Authority

[*] In the argument from degree, « The different properties of a given thing are presumed to vary in step with one another » (id., p. 155).

Levi (1992) considers that the essential rhetorical means of persuasion used in Chinese are

Metaphor (*)                               Analogy
Example                                      Quoting an authority (*)

Quoting an authority comes with the argument from authority. Metaphor comes with the argument from analogy; Analogy and authority are  common to both lists.

Examples are associated with a number of argumentative operations. They are associated with any law, according to the type / occurrence principle; they are powerful instruments of refutation. Generalizations are based on one or more cases or examples. A paradigmatic example has the value of a general law. Precedents are memorable examples that function as rules. In addition, examples function as crucial cases that, which can disprove a proposed law or generalization (The N are blue – Yes, but that one is red. In everyday language, a counterexample corresponds to an exception:That’s true, but…d)  [2]). As anecdotes, examples can have the most persuasive power in everyday argumentation; when they involve the speaker’s credibility, they are conversationally untouchable, armored against rebuttal: any tentative refutation becomes a personal attack and ruins the conversation.

The first list takes a structural approach to arguement, the second a  functional approach. We will consider both.

Empirical universals

My position is that there are universals in argumentation, because arguments develop potentialities of language, and there are linguistic universals. Languages, like Western languages, know the type/occurrence relationship, categorization and predication,  scalarity (a fortiori), comparison (analogy), etc.
See ATC A Fortiori

The degree of universality of an argumentative phenomenon is not determined by a priori considerations, but is an empirical fact that can be inferred by collecting data that 1) that come from a variety of languages and cultures 2) that can be clearly assigned to the same concept.

For example, since occurrences of the a fortiori argument pattern can be found in Jewish culture, Arab-Muslim culture, Western culture, and Chinese culture, it can be inferred that a fortiori has a high degree of universality.

In what follows, we suggest some  passages from classical Chinese texts as instances of some of these argument schemes.