Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions

The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions The study examines how participants in mediation sessions treat fallacies in naturally-occurring argumentative discussions and with what consequences for their development. Taking an interactional approach to studying fallacies, the research sheds light on the nature of fallacies, how they are achieved, and what they are accomplishing in the course of interaction. The fallacies are considered to be breaches of the interaction order and/or the institutional order. Two types of fallacies that occur in the process of these interactions are distinguished: traditional (i.e., fallacies that date back to Aristotle's time and are widely recognized by argumentation researchers) and non-traditional (i.e., wrong moves that do not belong to the traditional list of fallacies but, nevertheless, were treated as such by recipients themselves in the process of interaction). The findings show that whether an argumentation move is considered to be fallacious or non-fallacious depends on the orientation of participants themselves to this interaction phenomenon and on the context it is used in. The research provides the support for the idea that the participants' responses are crucial for realizing the potential of the fallacious moves. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Argumentation and Advocacy Taylor & Francis

The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions

Vasilyeva, Alena L.
Argumentation and Advocacy , Volume 46 (4): 20 – Mar 1, 2010
Download PDF

The Treatment of Fallacies in Argumentative Situations During Mediation Sessions

Abstract

The study examines how participants in mediation sessions treat fallacies in naturally-occurring argumentative discussions and with what consequences for their development. Taking an interactional approach to studying fallacies, the research sheds light on the nature of fallacies, how they are achieved, and what they are accomplishing in the course of interaction. The fallacies are considered to be breaches of the interaction order and/or the institutional order. Two types of fallacies that...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/the-treatment-of-fallacies-in-argumentative-situations-during-yQxgjeDqgu
Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2010 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2576-8476
eISSN
1051-1431
DOI
10.1080/00028533.2010.11821729
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The study examines how participants in mediation sessions treat fallacies in naturally-occurring argumentative discussions and with what consequences for their development. Taking an interactional approach to studying fallacies, the research sheds light on the nature of fallacies, how they are achieved, and what they are accomplishing in the course of interaction. The fallacies are considered to be breaches of the interaction order and/or the institutional order. Two types of fallacies that occur in the process of these interactions are distinguished: traditional (i.e., fallacies that date back to Aristotle's time and are widely recognized by argumentation researchers) and non-traditional (i.e., wrong moves that do not belong to the traditional list of fallacies but, nevertheless, were treated as such by recipients themselves in the process of interaction). The findings show that whether an argumentation move is considered to be fallacious or non-fallacious depends on the orientation of participants themselves to this interaction phenomenon and on the context it is used in. The research provides the support for the idea that the participants' responses are crucial for realizing the potential of the fallacious moves.

Journal

Argumentation and Advocacy – Taylor & Francis

Published: Mar 1, 2010

Keywords: argument; fallacy; interaction; dialectical approach; mediation

References

  • Neither naïve nor normative reconstruction: Dispute mediators, impasse, and the design of argumentation
  • Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation
  • Analyzing talk at work: An introduction
  • The conventional validity of the pragma-dialectical freedom rule
  • Fallacies as derailments of strategic maneuvering: The argumentum ad verecundiam, a case in point
  • The case of pragma-dialectics
  • The (un)reasonableness of ad hominem fallacies
  • Dispute resolution without disputing: How the interactional organization of mediation hearings minimizes argument
  • On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction
  • The interaction order
  • Argumentative talk in divorce mediation sessions
  • The rationality engine: How do arguers deal spontaneously with fallacies?
  • On the theoretical unification and nature of fallacies
  • Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme
  • Rhetoric and dialectic from standpoint of normative pragmatics
  • Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: Managing disagreement while managing not to disagree
  • Finding available means to put things right
  • What mediators do with words: Implementing three models of rational discussion in dispute mediation
  • Argument as a natural category: The routine grounds for arguing in conversation
  • Building a model of conversational argument
  • Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango
  • The blaze of her splendors. Suggestions about revitalizing fallacy theory
  • Reductionism in fallacy theory
  • A preliminary portrait of clients' reactions to three court mediation programs
  • A conversation analytic approach to relationships
  • The revelation argument. A ‘communicational fallacy’
  • Notes on methodology
  • Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses if ‘uh-huh’ and other things that come between sentences
  • From micro to macro: Contexts and other connections
  • Harvey Sacks: An introduction and memoir
  • “Talking like a mediator”: Conversational moves of experienced divorce mediators
  • The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies