Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Genre
Edited by Carla Vergaro
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3] 2018
► pp. 602–630

Argumentation as a dimension of discourse

The case of news articles

| University of Trieste
| University of Trieste
The aim of this paper is to explore the status of argumentative discourse. We argue that argumentation can contribute to instances of different discourse genres, regardless of whether it is functional to their purposes. By analyzing examples from the daily press in the light of an approach to discourse analysis inspired by pragmatics, we show that also texts that are not expected to be argumentative have underlying argumentative structures and that a text’s being argumentative is a matter of degree: the understanding of underlying argumentative structures contributes to a varying extent to the understanding of what a text as a whole means and of its point in the speech situation. This role of argumentative structures in text understanding suggests considering argumentation as a cognitively-based dimension of discourse, connected to human rationality.
Keywords: argumentative discourse, argumentative rationality, discourse genre, implicature, presupposition, text understanding, Toulmin’s model of argument structure
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1From the argumentative text type to argumentative genres, and beyond
    • 1.2A standard model of argument structures
    • 1.3Argumentation and reasoning
  • 2.The role of argumentative structures in text understanding
    • 2.1A clear-cut case of argumentative text
    • 2.2Argumentation in news articles
      • 2.2.1News comprising arguments
      • 2.2.2Speech events as news
      • 2.2.3News reporting actions
    • 2.3What our analyses show
  • 3.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.18024.lab
References (35)
References
Amossy, Ruth. 2005. The argumentative dimension of discourse. In Frans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (eds.), Practices of argumentation, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal Logic 29(3). 252–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Antelmi, Donatella & Francesca Santulli. 2012. Arbitration awards in Italy: Some argumentative features in the discourse analytical perspective. In Vijay Bhatia, Giulia Garzone & Chiara Degano (eds.), Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realisations, 91–108. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de & Wolfgang U. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 1987. Textual-mapping in British legislative writing. World Englishes. 6(1). 1–10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. Analysing genre-language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2004. Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay, Giulia Garzone & Chiara Degano (eds.). 2012. Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realisations. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics. 27(1). 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Robert Grootendorst. 1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Eric C. W. Krabbe, Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. Wagemans. 2014. Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Robert Grootendorst & Tjark Kruiger. 1984. The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Freeman, James B. 2001. Argument structure and disciplinary perspective. Argumentation. 15(14). 397–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Argument structure: Representation and theory. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greimas, Algirdas & Joseph Courtés. 1979. Sémiotique: Dictionnaire raisonné de la theorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter J. Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol. 31, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted in P. Grice. 1989. Studies in the ways of words, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
1991. The conception of value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hitchcock, David. 2017. On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and critical thinking. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ralph H. 2000. Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber. 2011. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34(22). 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70(2). 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Santulli, Francesca. 2008. La sentenza come genere testuale: Narrazione, argomentazione, performatività. In Giuliana Garzone & Francesca Santulli (eds.), Il linguaggio giuridico: prospettive interdisciplinari, 207–238. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina. 1989. Linguaggio, ragione, interazione: Per una pragmatica degli atti linguistici. Bologna: Il Mulino; second digital edition by Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2009.Google Scholar
. 2002. Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences. In Anita Fetzer & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Two conceptions of rationality in Grice’s theory of implicature. In Elvio Baccarini & Snježana Prijić-Samaržija (eds.), Rationality of belief and action, 233–247. Rijeka: University of Rijeka.Google Scholar
. 2007a. On argumentative rationality. Anthropology & Philosophy. 8(1/2). 89–99.Google Scholar
. 2007b. Detto non detto: Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
. 2018. Philosophical pragmatics. In Andreas H. Jucker, ‎Klaus P. Schneider & ‎Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 10), 133–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 2003. The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. First edition 1958. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trosborg, Anna (ed.). 1997. Text typology: Register, genre and text type. In Anna Trosborg (ed.), Text Typology and Translation, 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 1998. The New Dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, Egon. 1983. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Caponetto, Laura & Paolo Labinaz
2023. Marina Sbisà’s Deontic Approach to Speech Actions. In Sbisà on Speech as Action [Philosophers in Depth, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Cimmino, Doriana & Federica Cominetti
2023. Italian davvero (‘really’) as a trigger of implicit contents in persuasive discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 211 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Secades Gómez, Alejandro
2022. Modal Qualification and the Speech-Act of Arguing in LNMA: Practical Aspects and a Theoretical Issue. Argumentation 36:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sbisà, Marina
2021. Presupposition and implicature: Varieties of implicit meaning in explicitation practices. Journal of Pragmatics 182 ► pp. 176 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.