Abstract
Problems with regard to the analysis of argumentative partly discourse arise from definitorial disconformity. In this article, Informal argument is taken as the primary definition to study the basic structure of argument from a fragment of an Agatha Christie novel. Bilmes' account of the notions of Formulation (F) and Decision (D+/D-) are adapted to describe the relations of opposition which are displayed in informal argument. The minimal structure of argument is represented by the formula F/D-/D-, in which F is a speaker's personal composition of a ‘fact’, the first D- is the disconfirming uptake of it by another speaker and the second D- is the completing disconfirming uptake by the initial speaker. Some of the speaker's possibilities to initiate an argument by expressing a Formulation are explored, as well as the social and cultural norms which play a role in argument-initiation and the concepts of ‘win’ and ‘loss’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bavelas, J. B., L. E. Rogers and F. E. Millar: 1985 ‘Interpersonal Conflict’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 4, Academic Press, New York, pp 9–26.
Bilmes, J.: 1985, ‘Why That Now? Two kinds of Conversational Meaning’, Discourse Processes 8, 319–35.
Bilmes, J.: 1980, ‘Proposition and Confrontation in a Legal Discussion’, Semiotica 34, 251–275.
Brunneis, D. and L. Lein: 1977, ‘You Fruithead’, in S. Ervin-Tripp and C. Mithell-Kernan (eds.), Child Discourse, Academic Press, New York, pp. 49–65.
Christie, A.: 1978, The Mousetrap and Other Plays, Bantam, New York.
Danet, B.: 1980a, ‘An Empirical Study of Combativeness in the Adversary System of Justice’, British Journal of Law and Society 7, 36–60.
Danet, B.: 1980b, ‘Language in the Legal Process’, Law and Society Review 14, 445–564.
Frawley, W.: 1987, ‘Review Article’, Language 63, 361–97.
Garfinkel, H. and E. Sacks: 1970, ‘On Formal Structures of Practical Actions’, in J. C. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoetical Sociology, Academic Press, New York, pp 338–366.
Grice, P.: 1975, ‘Logic in Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds.), Syntaax and Semantics, Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, pp.41–58.
Heritage, J. C. and D. R. Watson: 1979, ‘Formulation as Conversational Objects’, in G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language, Irvington Publishers, Inc. New York, pp. 123–159.
Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs: 1980, ‘Structure of Conversational Argument: Pragmatic Basis for the Enthymeme’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 66 251–265.
Kess, J.: 1986a, ‘Review of Michael Stubbs: Discourse Analysis’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 31, 98–102.
Kess, J.: 1986b, ‘Review of T. A. van Dijk: Handbook of Discourse Analysis’, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 31, 386–396.
Kopperschmidt, J.: 1985, ‘An Analysis of Argumentation’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, pp 159–68.
Levinson, S. C.: 1983, Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Millar, F. E., L. E. Rogers and J. B. Bavelas: 1984, ‘Identifying Patterns of Verbal Conflict i in Interpersonal Dynamics’, The Western Journal of Speech Communication 48, 231–246.
O'Keefe, D. J.: 1977, ‘Two Concepts of Arguments’, Journal of the American Forensic Association 13, 121–128.
O'Keefe, D. J.: 1982, ‘The Concepts of Argument and Arguing’, in J. R. Cox and C. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 3–23.
O'Keefe, B. and P. Benoit: 1982, ‘Children's Arguments’, in J. R. Cox and C. Willard (eds.), Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 154–183.
Pomerantz, A.: 1984, ‘Agreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Disprefered Turn Shapes’, in J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p pp. 57–101.
Quasthoff, U.: 1978, ‘The Uses of Stereotype in Everyday Argument’, Journal of Pragmatics 2, 1–48.
Ragan, S. L.: 1983, ‘Alignment and Conversatonal Coherence’, in R. T. Craig and K. TbdTracey (eds.), Conversational Coherence, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, pp. 157–171.
Rosenblum, K.: 1987, ‘When Is a Question an Accusation?’, Semiotica 65, 143–56.
Schegloff, E.: 1972, ‘Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place’, in D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, The Free Press, New York, pp. 75–119.
Schiffrin, D.: 1985, ‘Everyday Argument: The Organization of Diversity in Talk’, in T. A. van Dijk(ed.), Handbook of Discourse analysis, Vol. 3, Academic Press, New York, pp.35–46.
Speier, M.:1972, ‘Some Conversational Problems for Interactional Analysis’, in D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, The Free Press, New York, pp.397–427.
Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
van Dijk, T. A.: 1985a, ‘Prefaace to Volume 1’, in T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 1, Academic Press, New York, pp. xii-xiv.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.): 1985b, Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vols. 1–4, Academic Press, New York.
van Dijk, T. A. and W. Kintsch: 1983, Strategies of Discourse Comprehension, Academic Press, New York.
van Eemeren F. H. and R. Grootendorst: 1984, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.
Wunderlich, D.: 1980, ‘Methodological Remarks on Speech Act Theory’, in J. Searle, F. Kiefer and M. Bierwisch (eds.), Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, pp. 291–312.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shahin, K.N. Argument as a formulation-decision-decision... sequence. Argumentation 4, 347–361 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173971
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173971