Cover not available
Part of
Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 13–32

Chapter 2
Analyzing versus interpreting argumentation

A clear-cut opposition or two poles on a continuous line?

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interpreting argumentation
  • 3.The data
  • 4.The academic analyst’s point of view on the sequence
    • Contextual elements
    • A slippery slope argument
  • 5.The commentators’ interpretations of the sequence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.02dou
References (45)
References
Amossy, R. (2010). L’argumentation dans le discours (3rd ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Angenot, M. (2008). Dialogues de sourds. Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar
Anthony, R., & Kim, M. (2015). Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation, 29, 81–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auricchio, A., Masseron, C., & Perrin-Schirmer, C. (1992). La polyphonie des discours argumentatifs: propositions didactiques. Pratiques, 73, 7–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bailin, S. (1991). Argumentation as Inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2d International Conference on Argumentation. June 19-22, 1990 (pp. 64–69). Amsterdam: Sicsat/Issa.Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (2004). Argument and its uses. Informal Logic, 24–2, 137–151.Google Scholar
Breton, P. (1996). L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
(2003). Eloge de la parole. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. (1980). Les formes directes et indirectes de l’argumentation. Pratiques, 28, 7–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danblon, E. (2005). La fonction persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique: origines et actualité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2003). L’évaluation des arguments dans les discours ordinaires: le cas de l’accusation d’amalgame. Langage et société, 105, 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langages, 154, 59–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation, 26-1, 99–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Le marquage langagier des types d’arguments. Le cas de l’argumentation par l’absurde. In J. Jacquin, T. Herman, & S. Oswald (Eds.), Les mots de l’argumentation (pp. 27–55). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2014). Bingo! Promising Developments in Argumentation Theory. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1408–1428). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflict of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991). Making the best of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 431–440). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Meuffels, B. (2002). Ordinary arguers’ judgments on ad hominem fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 45–64). Amsterdam, SicSat / Newport News (Virginia), Vale Press.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. A critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (2005). The Logic of deep disagreement. Informal Logic, 25-1, 3–11.Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: SicSat, Newport News (Virginia): Vale Press.Google Scholar
Godden, D., & Walton, D. (2007). Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27(3), 267–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Govier, T. (1982). What’s wrong with Slippery Slope Arguments?. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12–2, , 303–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht / Providence: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(2001). A practical study of argument (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Grossman, F. (1999). Littératie, compréhension et interprétation des textes. Repères, 19, 139–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S. (1989). What can argumentative practice tell us about argumentation norms ?. In R. Maier (Ed.), Norms in argumentation. Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988 (pp. 113–122). Dordrecht (Holland) / Providence (USA), Foris publications.Google Scholar
Jacquin, J., & Micheli, R. (2012). Entre texte et interaction: propositions méthodologiques pour une approche discursive de l’argumentation en sciences du langage. SHS Web of Conferences Volume 1, 2012; 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 599–611.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1980). L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Lahire, B. (1996). Risquer l’interprétation. Pertinences interprétatives et surinterprétations en sciences sociales. Enquête, 3. URL: [URL]; DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2012). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32–4, 403–439. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lumer, C. (2003). Interpreting Arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 215–719). Amsterdam: SIC SAT.Google Scholar
Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentation, 30, 399–422. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation. Argumentation, 26, 115–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, J., & de Spengler, N. (1982). La concession ou la réfutation interdite. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 4, 7–36.Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. ([1958]/1969). The New rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame (Indiana): University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1998). Les raisons des émotions. In M. Bondi (Ed.), Forms of argumentative discourse / Per un’analisi linguistica dell’argomentare (pp. 3–50). Bologne: CLUEB.Google Scholar
(2010). Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives. Verbum, 32-1, 31–51.Google Scholar
(2018). Dictionary of Argumentation. An Introduction to Argumentation Studies [Studies in Logic,74]. College Publications.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schellens, P. J., Šorm, E., Timmers, R., & Hoeken, H. (2017). Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?. Argumentation, 31, 681–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania Sate Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Willard, Ch. A. (1987). Valuing Dissensus. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceeding of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 145–157). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications, PDA 3.Google Scholar