From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric
Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Kraus, Manfred [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2007 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Argumentation - Springer Netherlands, 1987, 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:21 ; year:2007 ; number:1 ; month:03 ; pages:3-19 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2062559178 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2062559178 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502210606.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200820s2007 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2062559178 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 400 |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 7,11 |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a LING |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Kraus, Manfred |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2007 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a antithesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a burden of proof | |
| 650 | 4 | |a enthymeme | |
| 650 | 4 | |a fallacy | |
| 650 | 4 | |a figure of speech | |
| 650 | 4 | |a incompatibility | |
| 650 | 4 | |a indemonstrable | |
| 650 | 4 | |a rhetorical question | |
| 650 | 4 | |a strategical maneuvering | |
| 650 | 4 | |a syllogism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a topical argument | |
| 650 | 4 | |a warrant | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Argumentation |d Springer Netherlands, 1987 |g 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 |w (DE-627)165801050 |w (DE-600)18188-2 |w (DE-576)034177094 |x 0920-427X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:21 |g year:2007 |g number:1 |g month:03 |g pages:3-19 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-LING | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_100 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2010 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2093 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4082 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 21 |j 2007 |e 1 |c 03 |h 3-19 | ||
| author_variant |
m k mk |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:0920427X:2007----::rmiueoruetotaimn |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2007 |
| publishDate |
2007 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Kraus, Manfred verfasserin aut From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric 2007 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 21 2007 1 03 3-19 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Kraus, Manfred verfasserin aut From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric 2007 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 21 2007 1 03 3-19 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Kraus, Manfred verfasserin aut From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric 2007 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 21 2007 1 03 3-19 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Kraus, Manfred verfasserin aut From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric 2007 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 21 2007 1 03 3-19 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 doi (DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid Kraus, Manfred verfasserin aut From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric 2007 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant Enthalten in Argumentation Springer Netherlands, 1987 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 (DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 0920-427X nnns volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 AR 21 2007 1 03 3-19 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Argumentation 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Argumentation 21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19 volume:21 year:2007 number:1 month:03 pages:3-19 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant |
| dewey-raw |
400 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Argumentation |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Kraus, Manfred @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2007-03-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-sort |
3400 |
| id |
OLC2062559178 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062559178</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210606.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2007 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062559178</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kraus, Manfred</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">antithesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">burden of proof</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enthymeme</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fallacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">figure of speech</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">incompatibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">indemonstrable</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rhetorical question</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">strategical maneuvering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">syllogism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">topical argument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">warrant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2007</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2007</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">3-19</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Kraus, Manfred |
| spellingShingle |
Kraus, Manfred ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc antithesis misc burden of proof misc enthymeme misc fallacy misc figure of speech misc incompatibility misc indemonstrable misc rhetorical question misc strategical maneuvering misc syllogism misc topical argument misc warrant From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| authorStr |
Kraus, Manfred |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)165801050 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0920-427X |
| topic_title |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric antithesis burden of proof enthymeme fallacy figure of speech incompatibility indemonstrable rhetorical question strategical maneuvering syllogism topical argument warrant |
| topic |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc antithesis misc burden of proof misc enthymeme misc fallacy misc figure of speech misc incompatibility misc indemonstrable misc rhetorical question misc strategical maneuvering misc syllogism misc topical argument misc warrant |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc antithesis misc burden of proof misc enthymeme misc fallacy misc figure of speech misc incompatibility misc indemonstrable misc rhetorical question misc strategical maneuvering misc syllogism misc topical argument misc warrant |
| topic_browse |
ddc 400 ssgn 7,11 fid LING fid PHILOS misc antithesis misc burden of proof misc enthymeme misc fallacy misc figure of speech misc incompatibility misc indemonstrable misc rhetorical question misc strategical maneuvering misc syllogism misc topical argument misc warrant |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Argumentation |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
165801050 |
| dewey-tens |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Argumentation |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)165801050 (DE-600)18188-2 (DE-576)034177094 |
| title |
From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2062559178 (DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p |
| title_full |
From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| author_sort |
Kraus, Manfred |
| journal |
Argumentation |
| journalStr |
Argumentation |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
400 - Language 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2007 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
3 |
| author_browse |
Kraus, Manfred |
| container_volume |
21 |
| class |
400 100 VZ 7,11 5,1 ssgn LING DE-30 fid PHILOS DE-12 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Kraus, Manfred |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |
| dewey-full |
400 100 |
| title_sort |
from figure to argument: contrarium in roman rhetoric |
| title_auth |
From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| abstract |
Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument. © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-LING FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_100 GBV_ILN_2010 GBV_ILN_2093 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4082 GBV_ILN_4112 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
165801050 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:31:44.287Z |
| _version_ |
1803572430022639616 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2062559178</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502210606.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200820s2007 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2062559178</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10503-007-9042-2-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">400</subfield><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">7,11</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">LING</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kraus, Manfred</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: $$ \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} $$ The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">antithesis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">burden of proof</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">enthymeme</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">fallacy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">figure of speech</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">incompatibility</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">indemonstrable</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">rhetorical question</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">strategical maneuvering</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">syllogism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">topical argument</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">warrant</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Argumentation</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1987</subfield><subfield code="g">21(2007), 1 vom: März, Seite 3-19</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165801050</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)18188-2</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)034177094</subfield><subfield code="x">0920-427X</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:21</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2007</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:03</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:3-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-LING</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_100</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2010</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2093</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4082</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">21</subfield><subfield code="j">2007</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">03</subfield><subfield code="h">3-19</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.400058 |