ATC	Intentions: A collection of argumentative passages taken from translated Chinese classics

Many years ago, an anonymous student circulated a very interesting question in the argumentation studies community: Is there an alternative to Toulmin’s argumentation scheme?
Some students may of course struggle with the fundamentals of their argumentation course when based on repetitive data, and take Toulmin’s model as a symbol of their discomfort. However, the question also expresses an aspiration for a theoretical “beyond,” which is encapsulated by a response that suggests, without providing further detail, that the Chinese may have practised and developed their own vision of argumentation, unfortunately, without providing further details.

My aim here is to buid a collection of argumentative passages taken from translated Chinese classics.
My wish would be to contribute to the invention of another way for presenting and thinking about our field, one way which would not be based solely on what our great Greek and Latin ancestors has practiced and theorized.

A collection of cases coming from different  languages and cultures is implicitly based on hypothesis the universality of the basic reasoning schemes.

Global Cultures of Argument
We are accustomed to thinking about argumentation and arguing within our comfort zone, even though we know that Western culture cannot be denined as “the” culture of rhetoric and argumentation, but only as “one” of these cultures. Amartya Sen wrote about the Argumentative Indian ((2005), and, with the same right, we should currently work on « the argumentative Muslim » or the « the argumentative Chinese » not to mention the « the argumentative Inuit’ [2].

These are globalized cultures of argument since they all participate to the global movement of world culture. They are nonetheless deeply rooted in their own histories and cultures, developing their own concepts of good reason and good life.

AIM: A collection of argumentative passages
taken from translated Chinese classics

This collection of cases is offered by an illiteratus in Chinese language and culture to other illiterati who, like him, are no less eager to see what Western visions of rhetorical argumentation say and become when used far from their native Western habitat.

The Chinese culture of argument — We immediately encounter the problem of Babel; the West is also a small synchronic and diachronic Babel. Some argumentation specialists who are not specialists in Greek and Latin languages, have ready access to Greek and Latin literature through translated texts. Why shouldn’t we do the same with Chinese texts? But the Western concept of argumentation has been shaped by millennia of Latin and Greek culture, not by millennia of Chinese culture.

We’ll take the risk to do the same for Chinese classical culture, since a capital point is established: Chinese culture is a culture of argument.

An infinitely rich and varied textual record attests that argumentation, persuasion and contention were key elements in a wide array of activities central to the concerns of state and society in China throughout its history. [2]

It is relatively easy to find passages from translated classical Chinese texts that correspond to what the Western tradition considers to be facts and well-known argumentative structures. These include argumentative situations as well as some of the most common argumentative patterns of argument
For instance, we encounter episodes of confrontation of discourses,opening classical argumentative situations, as well as the most common argument patterns.
We will begin by presenting a variety of argumentative situation, that is then argument patterns,

In practice, this collection comes  parallel with the examples and cases, mostly Western, that appear in the Dictionary of Argumentation.
These passages are read and positioned in relation with the concepts proposed in this Dictionary. We systematically indicate the relevant entries with links to them.

This does not mean that this juxtaposition “exhausts” their content, any more than the topos exhausts the content of the enthymeme that translates it into ordinary language. It selects the connecting principles that are at work in this passage.

These suggestions for analysis relate exclusively to translations, considered as structured texts that make sense in the target language.

This is a work in progress: Some entries simply note the relevant passage.

_______________

[1] I have attempted to present theological-legal argumentation in the Muslim world using Khallâf’s great book The Foundations of Muslim Law (1942), a book which can be placed on the same level as Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s Treatise on Argumentation (1958); see Plantin 2005, chap. 7.

[2] Plantin & Tersis 2020. Attack, Defense and Counter-Attack in the Inuit Duel Songs of Ammassalik. In Chr.Plantin (ed.) Argumentation Through Languages and Cultures. Springer. Pp.51-72. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-19321-7_4

Hofmann, Kurtz & Levine 2020, p.1. Toward a History of Argumentative Practice in Late Imperial China.   In Hofmann M., J. Kurtz & A. D. Levine 2020, Powerful Arguments — Standards of Validity in Late Imperial China. Leiden, Brill.