{"id":4772,"date":"2021-10-18T12:14:39","date_gmt":"2021-10-18T10:14:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4772"},"modified":"2025-03-30T14:36:46","modified_gmt":"2025-03-30T12:36:46","slug":"collections-iv-contemporary-innovations-and-structurations-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/collections-iv-contemporary-innovations-and-structurations-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Collections (4)\u00a0: Contemporary Innovations and Structurations"},"content":{"rendered":"

COLLECTION 4: CONTEMPORARY INNOVATIONS
\nAND STRUCTURATIONS<\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

1. Cha\u00efm Perelman & Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca, A Treatise on Argumentation<\/em> \u2014 The New Rhetoric<\/em>, 1958<\/span><\/h1>\n

In The<\/em> New Rhetoric \u2014\u00a0A Treatise on Argumentation<\/em> (1958), Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca propose a sophisticated typology of arguments. Some twenty years later, in The Rhetorical Empire<\/em> [L’Empire Rh\u00e9torique<\/em>, 1977], Perelman takes up the essential elements of the 1958 typology, and makes some significant simplifications. In Juridical Logic<\/em> [Logique Juridique<\/em>, 1979] he presents a specific set of legal arguments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

1.1 The typology of the Treatise<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

According to Conley, the Treatise<\/em> contains \u201cmore than eighty different forms of argument, and illuminating remarks on more than sixty-five figures\u201d (1984, p. 180-181), and contrasts these achievements with \u201cToulmin’s renegade logic\u201d (ibid<\/em>.).<\/p>\n

The \u201cForms of argumentation\u201d are described in the third part of the Treatise<\/em>, entitled \u201cTechniques of argumentation\u201d. They are presented as a set of \u201cassociation techniques<\/em>\u201d, (Chap. 1 to 3), along with two other kinds of techniques, the \u201ctechnique<\/em> of dissociation<\/em>\u201d (Chap. 4), and the \u201cInteraction of arguments\u201d (Chap. 5). The latter chapter presents a number of dispositional techniques<\/em>, and discusses the relative persuasive effects of different arrangements of arguments in a speech, i.e questions of classical \u201cdispositio<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

1.2 The association techniques<\/span><\/h2>\n

The association techniques<\/em> correspond to the classical argument schemes. They are classified under three categories:<\/p>\n

Chap. 1. Quasi-logical arguments
\nChap. 2. Arguments based on the structure of reality
\nChap. 3. The relations establishing the structure of reality<\/p>\n

\u201cQuasi-logical arguments\u201d (\u00a746-59)<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

This category lists arguments which \u201clay claim to a certain power of conviction in the degree that they claim to be similar to the formal reasoning of logic or mathematics\u201d (p. 192); this definition should be brought closer to the definition of a fallacious argument as \u201cone that seems to be valid<\/em> but is not<\/em> so.\u201d (Hamblin 1970, p. 12), see. Fallacies (1)<\/a>. The category includes the following argument schemes:<\/p>\n