Abstract

Most texts on argumentation theory stress the importance of formal logic for the study of arguments. This paper raises some doubts about the usefulness of logic for the study of argumentation. In fact\ the basic analogy between logical proofs ana arguments in natural language does not seem to hold. There seems to be a basic circularity in everday arguments which cannot be reconstructed by the standard logical tools. Therefore we habe to look for some non-logical forms of representation. Some hints for this new type of argument representation are given.