This tentative work is dedicated to Professor Shier Ju of the Institute of Logic and Cognition at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, who invited me to deliver a seminar at the institute in 2019.
During the seminar, I noticed that Chinese researchers had no difficulty commenting and using Western models and concepts to analyse translated Chinese data.
This inspired me to follow their example, hence the provisional observations I propose herein.

PARALLEL CASES

Han Fei Tzi, Section 17, “Precautions within the palace.”

Whether one is ruler of a state of ten thousand chariots or of one thousand only, it is quite likely tha this consort, his concubines, or the son he has designated as heir to his throne will wish for his early death.

How do I know this is so? A wife is not bound to her husband by any ties of blood,If she loves her, she remains close to him; if not, she becomes estranged. The saying goes: « If the mother is favored, the son will be embraced. » But if this is then the opposite must be,  must run like this: « If the mother is despised, the son will be cast away.« A man at fifty has not yet lost interest in sex, and yet at thirty a women’s beauty has already faded. If a woman whose beauty has already faded waits upon a man still occupied by thoughts of sex, then she will be spurned and disfavored, and her son will stand little chance of suceeding to the throne. This is why consorts and concubines long for the early death of the ruler.

Han Fei Tzi, Section 17, “Precautions within the palace”, in Basic Wrirings. Translated by Burton Watson. New York & London, Columbia University Press, 1964

So-called Western argumentative practices have been present in written texts since the dawn of Greek and Latin civilizations.
The first theorizations of these practices correspond to the birth and development of Greek rhetoric and logic.

Translations from Latin and Greek
The teaching of Latin and Greek is an integral part of Western culture. The Latin and Greek texts have been extensively translated and continue to influence Western thought through a long tradition of commentary and translation reworking.
Within this tradition, certain translations are considered landmarks, such as the Latin translations of Aristotle by William of Moerbeke,

These versions are so faithful to Aristotle’s text that they are authorities on the corrections of the Greek manuscripts, and they enabled Thomas Aquinas to become a supreme interpreter of Aristotle without knowing Greek.
Allan Bloom, « Preface » to his translation of Plato’s Republic, 1968, p. xi.

This collection is about TRANSLATED Chinese classical texts
Without systematically aspiring to such heights, the interested reader can easily obtain reliable translations of many classical Chinese texts.  The price to pay is that this illiterate reader cannot study « argument in Chinese (classical texts) », « such and such an argument in the Analects of Confucius« , but only « such and such an argument in such and such a translation in the Analects of Confucius« .

In the case of major works, several translations of the same text are available, which makes it possible to to identify their differences and similarities, if necessary. In this case, one should consider that the different translations of the same passage express different readings of the same way of reasoning.

Sometimes, the translation(s) of the passages remain unclear or incompatible. In this case, comments can be left for a better future and for better readers. After all, this is also the case for texts in the analyst’s own language and culture.

From the Annals of Lü Buwei

18/4.4 — When Prince Chan governed Zheng, Deng Xi strove to disrupt things. He made a pact with those involved in litigation by which those who intended to pursue major legal cases should submit an upper garment, and those who wished to pursue minor legal cases should submit a short coat and lower garment. Those who submitted these garments and involved themselves in litigation were too numerous to count.

Thus, wrong was taken to be right, and right was taken to be wrong. With no standard of what was right and wrong, what was permissible and impermissible varied each day. Those whom Deng Xi wished to win in litigation did win, and those whom Deng Xi wished to punish were punished.

The state of Zheng fell into complete chaos, and the populace clamored. Prince Chan, troubled by this turn of events, had Deng Xi executed and his corpse exposed. The peopled hearts were then stilled, right and wrong were settled, and the laws and regulations enforced.

Deng Xi administers justice. According to the accusation, he set the price for judgments handed down in favor of cases, large or small.
Considering Deng Xi expertise in interpretating the law, one could suppose that he found and applied an interpretation of the law that exonerated his clients.
If so, he simply did what a lawyer is supposed to do and paid for. The problem is that judge and advocate are one and the same person.

18/5.2

The Annals of Lu Buwei
18, 5/2 – At the meeting at Kongxiong, Qin and Zhao joined together in a treaty, which said, “From this time forward, Zhao will support Qin in whatever Qin desires to do, and Qin will support Zhao in whatever Zhao desires to do.” Shortly thereafter Qin raised an army to attack Wei and Zhao wished to rescue the latter. The king of Qin was displeased and sent a man to reprimand the king o f Zhao. “Our treaty says, ’Zhao will support Q in in whatever Q in desires to do, and Q in will support Zhao in whatever Zhao desires to do. Qin now desires to attack Wei, and Zhao on account of this wishes to assist Wei. This is contrary to our treaty.”

The king of Zhao reported this to the Lord of Pingyuan, who told Gongsun Long. Gongsun Long said, “You too may send out an emissary to reprimand the king of Qin, saying, ‘It is Zhao’s desire to assist Wei, but now the King of Qin alone refuses to support Zhao. This is contrary to our treaty.”

Gongsun Long rétorque exactement le même reproche.
Il va falloir s’appesantir un peu sur les détails de rédaction du traité. Un point singulier qui neutralise le traité, comme Deng Xi neutralise la loi.
Les deux arguments sont strictements équivalents  les deux parties sont à égalité stricte.
(isosthénie). Blocage.
Il va falloir s’appesantir un peu sur les détails de rédaction du traité. Un point singulier qui neutralise le traité, comme Deng Xi neutralise la loi.

The a fortiori argument scheme is a clear example of a cross-cultural interpretive – argumentative rule.

Greco-Latin Tradition

In the Greco-Latin tradition all collections of argument schemes throughout the history of Western argumentation mention the a fortiori rule. Aristotle illustrates this rule via the following examples:

If even the gods are not omniscient, then certainly human beings are certainly not.
(Rhet, II, 23, 1397b15, RR, p. 359)
A man who strikes his father also strikes his neighbors […] for a man is less likely to strike his father than to strike his neighbors (ibid.).

The second argument can be used in the following situation. Somebody was assaulted. Who is guilty? We know that someone in the victim’s neighborhood committed violence against his own father. The a fortiori argument casts suspicion upon the person who has already committed more severely prohibited forms of violence. The conclusion is that the police should question him.

Muslim Legal Argumentation

In Muslim legal argumentation, the bi-l-awla argument corresponds exactly to the a fortiori argument. The issue is addressed in the Quran (Surah 17, verse 24), dealing with the respect that a child owes to his parents:

Do not make “pfff!” to them!

The prohibition refers to a minimal impolite retort of a child shrugging off or reluctantly obeying the words of his parents, puffing out a sigh of exaspera­tion. The a fortiori principle extends this prohibition to all disrespectful behavior: “since it is forbidden even to say “pfff!” to one’s parents, it is all the more forbid­den to say harsh words to them, bully or hit them”.
The prohibition takes its support on the lowest point on the scale, the epsilon of disrespect. Commentators have noted that an a fortiori argument can be a form of semantic deduction (Khallâf [1942], p. 216).

Talmudic Exegesis

The rules of Talmudic exegesis have been established by various authors following Hillel (1^st century CE). The entry “Hermeneutics” in the Encyclopædia Judaïca, enumerates the thirteen interpretive rules of Rabbi Ishmael.
The first rule is qal va-homer, “how much more”, which goes from the “minor” (qal) to the “major” (homer) a fortiori. (Jacobs & Derovan 2007, p. 25).

This rule helps to determine what is lawful and what is not, for example it establishes the conditions under which the Easter sacrifice, Pesach, should be offered. The Bible asks that Pesach be offered at Easter. Some actions are forbidden on the Sabbath, so what is one to do when Pesach coincides with the Sabbath? The calculation a fortiori gives the answer: the Olat Tamid sacrifice (“daily burnt-offering” [1]) is offered daily, including on the Shabbat. Pesach is more important than Tamid (proof: if one does not respect Tamid, one does not incur penalties; if one does not respect Pesach, the sanctions are severe). Since not cele­brating Pesach is more serious than not cele­brating Tamid, and Tamid is lawful when Easter falls on the day of Shabbat, it is therefore a fortiori lawful to sacrifice Pesach when Easter falls on Sabbath.
The reasoning can be expressed as a rhetorical syllogism:

Problem: the Pesach sacrifice must be offered on Passover.
Some actions are forbidden on Shabbat
Question: What should we do when Passover coincides with Shabbat?

Data: We know that 1) the Tamid offering must be celebrated on Shabbat, and 2) Not celebrating Pesach is worse than not celebrating the Tamid offering.
Argumentation: Topos of the opposites on (2):
Celebrating Pesach is more important than celebrating Tamid.
This, combined with (1), leads to the conclusion:

Conclusion: Pesach can be celebrated when Easter coincides with Shabbat.

Chinese Tradition

Confucius, The Analects. Bk 11, §12. Trans. Robert Eno [3]

Ji Lu asked about serving the spirits. The Master said, “While you are yet not able to serve men, how could you be able to serve the spirits?”
“May I ask about death?”
“When you do not yet understand life, how could you understand death?”

Han Fei Tzu, “Precautions within the palace”.  Trans. Burton Watson [4]

Thus, the actor Shih aided Lady Li to bring about the death of Shen-sheng and to set Hsi-ch’i on the throne.¹ Now, if someone as close to the ruler as his own consort, and as dear to him as his own son, still cannot be trusted, then obviously no one else is to be trusted either.
¹ Lady Li and Hsi-ch’i “forced Shen-sheng to commit suicide in 656 BC”. “Hsi-ch’i (…) succeeded to the throne in 651 BC” (Burton Watson’s note to the text)

UNIVERSAL PERSPECTIVE

A fortiori can therefore be considered a good candidate for universality. This is not surprising, since it is based on scalarity and comparison, which are found in all languages.

See A fortiori, Comparison, Argument scales – Laws of discourse,

This example is taken from Mengzi’s (Mencius, Meng Ke) discussion with Gaozi (Kao Tzu) [1] as reported in Mengzi’s text.
The discussion focuses on two fundamental concepts of Confucianism: human nature and righteousness. Gaozi attempts to clarify these concepts by drawing an analogy with the willow tree, which is used to make cups and bowls. Mencius strongly rejects this analogy, which he considers inadequate.
For our current purposes we will limit ourselves to two translations, those of Robert Eno and Dim Cheuk Lau, namely Mencius_Eno and Mencius_Lau (our presentation and numbering).

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A is like B‘, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
Both translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem posed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms (the ‘>’ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse): [4]

This is clearly a dialectical exchange between two philosophers. Gaozi puts forward an analogy, made explicit by the construction ‘A is like B’, to illustrate his conception of human nature.
Both translations use the same expression, ‘human nature’ (1a), to refer to the topic of the debate. The problem discussed by Gaozi concerns the emergence of a complex capacity, which is referred to using the following terms. The ‘>‘ sign indicates that these terms are part of a chain corresponding to the same object of discourse [5])

Les deux traductions utilisent la même expression, human nature (1a) pour désigner le thème général du débat. Le problème posé par Gaozi concerne l’émergence d’une capacité complexe désignée par les termes suivants. [4] e signe “>” indique que les termes entrent dans la chaîne dont l’ensemble correspond à un même objet de discours),[2]

Mencius does not comment on the concept under discussion, but only on the analogy used by Gaozi. He develops the analogy by focusing on the nature of the transformation undergone by the willow to become a bowl and cup

To describe this process, Gaozi uses the abstract predicate ‘making C from/out of W’, which has no definite argumentative orientation, in both translations. The text continues with a question from Mencius.

In both translations, Mencius essentially adopts the willow’s point of view. Mencius_Lau uses the word ‘mutilate’, which has a negative connotation. The expression ‘mutilating the willow to make a bowl and a cup‘ thus highlights the negative nature of the transformation undergone by the willow. This completely changes the perspective on the operation.
With ‘hack’, Mengzi_Eno adds the sensation of a sharp instrument, which is perfectly consistent with the idea of mutilation: ‘hack W into C‘.
Based on the analogy proposed by Gaozi himself, Mengzi_Eno transfers the operation to humans (a process marked by ‘then‘ in Mencius_Lau).

We conclude that both translations clearly develop an argument by analogy, which is rejected by the opponent who finds fault with the analogy by pointing out a flaw in its structure.
Consequently, this case can be used for all practical purposes in argumentation, under either translation.
The only reservation concerns the status of the concepts on which the analogy is based (righteousness, dutifulness, humanity and morality), which are beyond the scope of this discussion.

[1] Mengzi_Eno and Mencius_Lau refer respectively to Eno’s and Lau’s translation of Mengzi’s work.
Mengzi is the pinyin transcription of the author’s name, Latinized as Mencius (-372, – 289).
Mencius = Mengzi = Meng Ke (-372, – 289).
Gaozi = Kao-tzu = Gao Buhai), circa 420-350 BCE.
More information in Wikipedia.

[2] For the concepts of discourse object and schematization used here, see Plantin Chr., Dictionary of argumentation.

diverging

Falling out of disfavor

(T1) In by-gone days, Mi Tzŭ-hsia was in favour with the Ruler of Wei. According to the Law of the Wei State, « whoever in secret rides in the Ruler’s coach shall have his feet cut off. » Once Mi Tzŭ-hsia’s mother fell ill. Somebody, hearing about this, sent a message to Mi Tzŭ late at night. Thereupon Mi Tzŭ on the pretence of the Ruler’s order rode in the Ruler’s coach. At the news of this, the Ruler regarded his act as worthy, saying: « How dutiful he is! For his mother’s sake he even forgot that he was committing a crime making him liable to lose his feet. » Another day, when taking a stroll with the Ruler in an orchard, he ate a peach. It being so sweet, he did not finish it, but gave the Ruler the remaining half to eat. So, the Ruler said: « You love me so much indeed, that you would even forget your own saliva taste and let me eat the rest of the peach. »

When the colour of Mi Tzŭ faded, the Ruler’s love for him slackened. Once he happened to offend the Ruler, the Ruler said: « This fellow once rode in my coach under pretence of my order and another time gave me a half-eaten peach. » The deeds of Mi Tzŭ had themselves never changed. Yet he was at first regarded as worthy and later found guilty because his master’s love turned into hate.

Han Fei Tse_Liao Ch. XII Difficulties in the Way of Persuasion

The Mechanics of disfavor

Parallelism

brilliant colors > love > language of love > brillant life
faded colors > disgrace > language of hate > death

Western Rhetoric: Paradiastole, in Orientation Reversal

As we know, all lovers boast of their choice. The chatterer [is] good-humored, and the silent one maintains her virtuous modesty (Molière, [The Misanthrope], 1666[2])

(What is presented as) the true strongly negative description of a person as a chatterbox or a stupid person contrasts with how she appears to her lover, good-humored or maintaining her virtuously modest.

The language of the lover and that of the ex-lover
The mechanism of Mi Tzŭ’s disfavor: “When the color of Mi Tzŭ faded, the Ruler’s love for him slackened.” And he spoke a completely different language, putting the ex-favorite at risk.

The Controversial Approach in the Western Argumentation 

Western argumentation is “controversial”. It is based on the fact that it is possible for two honest speakers who are committed to their words and actions to develop, on a given topic, two well-constructed, well-informed, plausible, and relatively reasonable discourses that nevertheless lead to incompatible conclusions (visions, opinions, etc.), thus producing an argumentative question.

Western argumentation, can be defined as a mixed cognitive and linguistic activity, the systematic study of which developed from Aristotle, based mainly on data provided by judicial discourse, speeches made in court, deliberative discourse, assembly speeches, and the epidictic episodes that enter into these discourses. To these classical genres, have been added the genre of religious discourse, advertising discourse.

These discourses are prototypical of what the Western tradition understands by argumentation. It is in these dialogical, openly argumentative contexts that the argumentative phenomena are most clearly present and are therefore easier to study, where the concepts and methods specific to them are most productive.

This does not, of course, prevent argumentation from occurring in other contexts; if we define it, for example, as the implementation of an effort to persuade, then it becomes a universal property of human speech.

Furthermore, we know that the intension of a concept (its definitional content) decreases as its extension increases (it is applied to objects that do not belong to its fundamental domain). The perpetual generalization of a concept to new objects leads to a dilution of its meaning, as we have seen with the concept of structure.

« The agent is not the weigher but the arm of the balance itself”

The third party as the balancing power

In the Western model, the metaphor of the arm of the scales is appropriate for describing the role of the Third Party and, specifically, that of the Judge [2] (Plantin 2021, Argumentative Roles).

However, for the scales to stabilize and clearly indicate a trend, two conditions must be met: first, that “knowledge has been attained,” and second, that there is sufficient time for orientations and inclinations to organize themselves, which presupposes that the decision is not extremely urgent.

The arguer as the arm of the balance

A.C. Graham, in his book Disputers of the Tao: Philosophical Argument in Ancient China (1989), notes that Confucian philosophy has much to say about the problems of choice and action, and that it knows how to circumvent the pitfalls of alternatives:

Confucius is of course very much concerned with choice in the most general sense of the word, as settling after due consideration on a particular course of action,

If you don’t say “What shall I do about it, what shall I do about it ?” there is nothing I can do about you (Analects_GRAHAM 1989 15/16)

But choice in this general sense does not necessarily imply even the posing of alternatives. It might be the contemplation of one’s situation, and the examples of the sages in similar situations until inclination spontaneously settles in a certain direction. (Graham 1989, p. 27) [1]

The overriding imperative is to learn and arrive at knowledge; once you know, orientations towards action may be left to take care of itself as confused inclinations sort themselves out. To apply the metaphor of weighing which Confucius does not use, the agent is not the weigher but the arm of the balance itself. (op. cit, p. 28)

***

A PROGRAM

The arguer as the arm of the balance is a telling model-metaphor, and as such, an excellent « alternative to the Toulmin’s model of argument« , predominant, if not exclusive in the Western world.
The position of this  model-metaphor vis-à-vis the Toulmin’s model remains to be established.