Writing about argumentation is a daunting task for at least one main reason. Argumentation occupies an interdisciplinary domain in which logic and rhetoric merge with discourse linguistics and pragmatics; therefore, discussing this broad field of study from a linguistic perspective imposes a dividing line between two or more areas that naturally converge. Moreover, argumentation belongs not solely to the realm of logic and discourse pragmatics but is inherent in language as a whole, in that all texts, both spoken and written, exhibit a degree of ‘reasonableness’ that is realised in a number of ways and at all levels of the language system. In light of this conviction, we propose to organise the following foray into studies on argumentation into the two areas of discourse and grammar, in order to show how these two language levels can function jointly when a speaker/writer advances a particular claim. In so doing, we provide a discussion that takes into account both the macro-level of discourse beyond the sentence and the micro-level of grammar within the sentence. As an illustration of argumentation at each of these two levels, we use two relatively long texts, one from television news, in which a particular idea is put forth by multiple speakers, and the other a political speech with a sole orator. We hope that our reflection on argumentation from these two perspectives of discourse and grammar with the support of authentic texts provides some useful insights into this complex field of interdisciplinary research.
References
Angenot, M.
2008Dialogue de sourds: Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits (Fayard).
Apothéloz, D., P-Y. Brandt and G. Quiroz
1993 “The function of negation in argumentation.” Journal of Pragmatics 19: 23–38. BoP
Asher, N. and A. Lascarides
1994 “Intentions and information in discourse.” In
Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics
, 34–41. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Bakhtin, M.
1982Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Beaver, D. and B. Clark
2003 “Always and only: Why not all focus-sensitive operators are alike.” Natural Language Semantics 11(4): 323–362.
Budzynska, K.
2006 “Persuasion: The practical face of logic.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 17: 343–362.
Blum-Kulka, S.et al.
2002 “Traditions of dispute: From negotiations of Talmudic texts to the arena of political discourse in the media.” Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1569–1594. BoP
Büring, D.
2007 “Semantics, intonation and information structure.” In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 1–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chafe, W. L.
1976 “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view.” In Subject and topic, ed. by Charles N. Li, 27–55. New York: Academic Press.
Clark, H. H. and S.E. Haviland
1977 “Comprehension and the given-new contract.” In Discourse Production and Comprehension, ed. by R.O. Freedle, 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Cohen, R.
1987 “Analyzing the structure of argumentative discourse.” Computational Linguistics 13(1-2): 11–24.
Doury, M.
2012 “Preaching to the converted: Why argue when everyone agrees?” Argumentation 26: 99–114.
Edberg, N. and R. Zacharski
(eds.)2007The Grammar Pragmatics Interface. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ellis, D. and I. Maoz
2007 “Online argument between Israeli Jews and Palestinians.” Human Communication Research 33(3): 291–309.
Fetzer, A.
2007 “Well if that had been true, that would have been perfectly reasonable: Appeals to reasonableness in political interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1342–1359. BoP
Fillmore, C.
1976 “Frame semantics and the nature of language.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32.
Flores-Ferrán, N. and Kelly Lovejoy
2015 “An examination of mitigating devices in the argument interactions of L2 Spanish learners.” Journal of Pragmatics 76(1): 67–86.
1975 “Logic and conversation.” In Speech Acts, ed. by P. Cole and J.L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. BoP
Grosz, B. and C. Sidner
1986 “Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse.” Computational Linguistics 12(3): 175–204.
Grimshaw, A.
(ed.)1990Conflict Talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Haarman, L.
1997 ”Argument style and performance in the audience discussion show.” In Understanding Argument: la logica informale del discorso, ed. by G. Bussi, M. Bondi and M. Gatta, 71–90. Bologna: Clueb.
Habermas, J.
1987Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
Haarman, L.
2001 “Performing talk.” In Television talk shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle, ed. by A. Tolson, 31–64. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hamblin, C.
1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hess-Lüttich, E.
2007 “(Pseudo-)argumentation in TV-debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1360–1390. BoP
Hutchby, I.
2001 “ ‘Oh’, irony and sequential ambiguity in arguments.” Discourse & Society 12(2): 123–141.
Ilie, C.
1999 “Question-response argumentation in talk shows.” Journal of Pragmatics 31: 975–999. BoP
Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs
1980 “Structure of conversational argument: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech 66: 251–65.
Jasinski, J.
1993 “(Re)constituting community through narrative argument: Eros and Philia in The Big Chill.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79: 467–486.
Johnson, R. and J. Blair
1983Logical Self Defence. Toronto: McGraw Hill.
Katzav, J. and C. Reed
2008 “Modelling argument recognition and reconstruction.” Journal of Pragmatics 40(1): 155–172. BoP
Komlósi, L. and I. Tarrósy
2010 “Presumptive arguments turned into a fallacy of presumptuousness: Pre-election debates in a democracy of promises.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 957–972. BoP
Krifka, M.
2008 “Basic notions of information structure.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 55: 243–276.
Langacker, R.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. BoP
Lauerbach, G.
2007 “Argumentation in political talk show interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1388–1419. BoP
Lauerbach, G. and K. Aijmer
2007 “Introduction: Argumentation in dialogic media genres—Talk shows and interviews.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1333–1341.
Levinson, S.
1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Levinson, S.
2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. BoP
Mey, J.
1993Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. BoP
Micheli, R.
2012 “Arguing without trying to persuade? Elements for a non-persuasive definition of argumentation.” Argumentation 26: 115–126.
Németh, E. and K. Bibok
2010 “Interaction between grammar and pragmatics: The case of implicit arguments, implicit predicates and co-composition in Hungarian.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 501–524. BoP
2012b “Persuasive argumentation versus manipulation.” Argumentation 26: 55–69.
Newmeyer, F.
2006 “Grammar is grammar and usage is usage.” Language 79: 682–707.
O’Keefe, D.
1977 “Two concepts of argument.” Journal of the American Forensic Association 13: 121–128.
O’Keefe, D.
2012 “Conviction, persuasion, and argumentation: untangling the ends and means of influence.” Argumentation 26: 19–32.
Plantin, C.
2012 “Persuasion or alignment?” Argumentation 26: 83–97.
Prince, E.
1986 “On the syntactic marking of presupposed open propositions.” Parasession Papers, Chicago Linguistic Society 22: 208–222.
Polanyi, L.
1988 “A formal model of the structure of discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 12: 601–638. BoP
Resnick, L.et al.
1993 “Reasoning in conversation.” Cognition and Instruction 11(3/4): 347–364.
Richardson, J.
2001 “‘Now it’s the time to put an end to all this’: Argumentative discourse theory and ‘letters to the editor’.” Discourse & Society 12(2): 143–168.
Santibáñez, C.
2010 “Metaphors and argumentation: The case of Chilean parliamentarian media participation.” Journal of Pragmatics 42: 973–989. BoP
Searle, J.
1969Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Semic, B. and D. Canary
1997 “Trait argumentativeness, verbal aggressiveness, and minimally rational argument: An observational analysis of friendship discussions.” Communication Quarterly 45(4): 355–378. BoP
Simosi, M.
2003 “Using Toulmin’s framework for the analysis of everyday argumentation: Some methodological considerations.” Argumentation 17: 185–202. BoP
Smith, W. and Z. Bekerman
2011 “Constructing social identity: Silence and argument in an Arab-Jewish Israeli group encounter.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 1675–1688. BoP
Smirnova, A.
2009 “Reported speech as an element of argumentative newspaper discourse.” Discourse & Communication 3(1): 79–103. BoP
Sperber, D. and D. Wilson
2002 “Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading.” Mind & Language 17: 3–23. BoP
Stalnaker, Robert.
1974 “Pragmatic presuppositions.” In Semantics and Philosophy, ed. by Milton Muniz and Peter Unger, 197–213. New York: NYU Press. BoP
Thornborrow, J.
2007 “Narrative, opinion and situated argument in talk show discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1436–1453. BoP
Tolson, A.
(ed.)2001Television Talk Shows: Discourse, Performance, Spectacle. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Toulmin, S.
1958The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Toulmin, S.
(ed.)1970Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics. London: Harper.
Toulmin, S.et al.
1979An Introduction to Reasoning. New York/London: Macmillan and Collier Macmillan
van Eemeren, F.H., B. Garssen and B. Meuffels
1993 “Effectiveness through reasonableness preliminary steps to pragma-dialectical effectiveness research.” Argumentation 26: 33–53.
van Eemeren, F.H. and R. Grootendorst
1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Floris. BoP
van Eemeren, F.H. and R. Grootendorst
1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
van Eemeren, F.H. and R. Grootendorst
2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F.H., R. Grootendorst, S. Jackson and S. Jacobs
1997 “Argumentation.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. I., Discourse as Structure and Process, ed. by T.A. van Dijk, 208–229. London: Sage. BoP