1. Determine the relevant types of sentences
2. Determine the argumentation schemes
3. Determine the arguments against the use of the argumentation schemes
4. Determine the conditions for the use of the argumentation schemes
Step 3 is related to the defeasibility of argumentation schemes: there can be exceptional situations in which the scheme should not be used. Step 4 has to do with the contingency of schemes: it can be the case that the use of a scheme depends on certain conditions. The methodology is inspired by previous formal work on dialectical argumentation and concrete argumentation schemes (e.g., Verheij 1999b, 2001a). A deep issue concerning argumentation schemes is their specifiability. To what extent can argumentation schemes be specified at all? Argumentation schemes are variable, flexible and robust: people use the schemes all the time, and do not seem to encounter difficulties in adapting a scheme to neatly fit new circumstances. How to deal with this issue seems to be beyond our current state of understanding of argumentation schemes. The issue shows how the investigation of argumentation schemes is connected with deep questions concerning language use and (natural and artificial) cognition.
Verheij, B. (2003). Dialectical argumentation with argumentation schemes: towards a methodology for the investigation of argumentation schemes. Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (ISSA 2002) (eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, C.A. Willard & F. Snoeck Henkemans), pp. 1033-1037. Sic Sat, Amsterdam.
Download manuscript (in PDF-format)