佩雷尔曼新修辞学视域下论证评估研究

On Argument Evaluation in the light of Perelman's New Rhetoric

在新修辞学中,佩雷尔曼的普遍听众在本质上充当了评估论证好坏的标准或规范。借鉴约翰逊、布莱尔提出的RSA标准以及黑斯廷斯提出的"批判性问题评估法",普遍听众作为评估论证的标准可以具体化为听众对前提以及前提对结论支持关系的遵从,这种遵从体现为与每一论证型式相匹配的批判性问题。一个合情理的论证就是与其论证型式相匹配的批判性问题获得普遍听众的遵从;一个不合情理的论证就是与其论证型式相匹配的批判性问题至少有一个没有获得普遍听众的遵从。

In Perelman's NewRhetoric,the universal audience is in essence the standard or norm to assess an argumentation. According to the standards for RSA proposed by Johnson and Blair,and the evaluation method of critical questions put forward by Hastings,the universal audience,as a criterion for evaluation,can be specified as the audience 's adherence to the premise and the relationship between the premise and the conclusion. The audience's adherence expresses itself as the critical questions which match each argument scheme. A reasonable argument is that the universal audience adheres to the critical question which matches each argument scheme.Whereas an unreasonable one is that the universal audience does not adhere to at least one critical question which matches each argument scheme.