Abstract
This chapter provides a survey of some prominent semantic and pragmatic approaches to argumentation developed in the French-speaking and Italian-speaking world. Sect. 9.2, presents the main outlines of the theory of “natural logic,” developed by Swiss logician Grize and his colleagues out of dissatisfaction with formal logic. According to Grize, the convincingness of a text may just as much depend on its presentation as on the abstract reasoning patterns underlying it. He therefore proposes to view argumentation as a discursive phenomenon. Arguments are in natural logic studied in a context of situated argumentative discourse, taking account of the syntactic and semantic properties of the language in which they are formulated.
In Sect. 9.3, the approach of French linguists Ducrot and Anscombre is discussed. In their theory every form of language use is assumed to have an argumentative aspect. At the sentence level, linguistic predicates are associated with certain sets of argumentative principles calledtopoi. Suchtopoi authorize in a particular speech community the drawing of certain conclusions. Another important concept in Anscombre and Ducrot’s theory ispolyphony (“many-voicedness”). By making use of this concept, it becomes possible to account for the fact that in one and the same utterance, more points of view may be presented (which can sometimes even be contradictory). Since the late 1990s, together with Ducrot, Carel has developed a more radical version of Anscombre and Ducrot’s theory of argumentation: thetheory of semantic blocks.
Section 9.4 is devoted to three Francophone argumentation scholars with a discourse analytic approach: Plantin and Doury in France and Amossy in Israel. All these authors aim at describing argumentative practices and discourse patterns of various kinds. Each of them makes use of a combination of insights from (classical and new) rhetoric and modern argumentation theory to realize such descriptions.
In Sect. 9.5, the main characteristics of the Luganese semantic-pragmatic approach to argumentative discourse, developed by Rigotti, Rocci, and Greco, are presented. Central in their research has been the construction of theArgumentum Model of Topics, aimed at giving a systematic representation of argument schemes by taking modern semantics and pragmatics into account. Starting from a taxonomy ofloci allows for the application of the model to specific argumentative domains such as mediation, finance, and the media.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Grize, born in 1922, was a collaborator of the epistemologist and psychologist Jean Piaget from 1958 until 1968; in1960 he became professor of logic at the University of Neuchâtel, and until 1987 he was director of the Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques. Since 1965, Grize’s work centered on the logic of ordinary argumentative discourse.
- 4.
According to Gomez Diaz (1991), the development of natural logic has proceeded through three stages. The first stage was aimed at developing a logic of thought which runs parallel to and is grounded in the psychology of intelligence (psychologic, 1958–1976). In the next stage, a sociological orientation is given to the theory (sociologic, 1978–1980). In the third stage, the affective aspects of argumentation are accounted for by moving into semiology (semiologic). Thus, natural logic incorporates the three components that are, according to Grize, common to all discourse: the cognitive component, the social component, and the affective component (Gomez Diaz1991, pp. 123–124).
- 5.
Natural logicians prefer the termnatural logic toinformal logic since they consider the latter term acontradictio terminorum. In their view, the terminformal logic is misleading because it suggests that ordinary argumentative discourse is without form (Borel1989, p. 38). By using the termnatural logic, natural logicians want to emphasize that logic belongs to the domain of (naturalized) epistemology rather than normative science.
- 6.
The description of the main differences between formal logic and natural logic serves at the same time as a (contrastive) definition of natural logic.
- 7.
Although the process of interpreting written texts is in some respects different, what is being said here about speakers and listeners applies,mutatis mutandis, equally to writers and readers.
- 8.
Of course, when speaking metaphorically, all kinds of properties can be ascribed to discourse entities which they do not normally have.
- 9.
A deduction or formal proof is by natural logicians seen as nothing more than a particular instance of this general concern to present an argument in such a way that it can gain the approval of the listener.
- 10.
Grize (1996, pp. 60–68) discusses a number of postulates underlying the communication model of natural logic.
- 11.
According to Borel et al. (1983, p. 75), Grize borrowed the concept ofrealistic attitude from Piaget (1923, p. 68), who considers this kind of attitude to be characteristic of the stage of “egocentrism” in the child’s development of thought. In this non-critical or precritical stage, children do not differentiate between their own perspective of the world and that of other people and therefore take their own perspective as the only one and the true one. The concept of realistic attitude parallels Quine’s concept ofproliferation of ontologies and the Marxist concept ofreification.
- 12.
A discourse is coherent if it invokes a suitable schema in the listener (Borel et al.1983, pp. 76–77). This interpretation of coherence is influenced by Piaget’s definition of the more general concept ofaction scheme. An action scheme is an abstract, non-perceptible form in which the generalizable properties of a particular action are assembled, which makes it possible to repeat an action or to apply it to new situations (Piaget and Beth1961, p. 251).
- 13.
Grize (2004, p. 40) makes a distinction betweennon-coherent andincoherent schematizations. In non-coherent schematizations, there is a gap in the representation that the addressee makes of the situation (i.e., some explanation is needed). A schematization is incoherent if there is a contradiction which needs to be resolved for the proposal to be acceptable to the audience.
- 14.
Cf. Aristotle’s concept ofeikos.
- 15.
Grize thinks that argumentation should have both a reasoning component and what he calls aseductive component, which makes use of “illuminations.” For this reason, Herman (2010, pp. 169–170) believes there is a close association between Grize’s natural logic and rhetorical approaches.
- 16.
- 17.
Ducrot was a professor and research fellow at the CNRS (National Centre of Scientific Research). He is currently a professor (directeur d’études) at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales (EHESS) in Paris. Anscombre is director of research at the CNRS, Paris.
- 18.
According to Meyer (1986b), rather than to show simply that language is used to argue and to convince, Ducrot and Anscombre’s aim is “to demonstrate how natural language indicates a conclusion; suggests, implies, promotes or presupposes it without stating it explicitly in words” (p. 95).
- 19.
Iten (2000) provides a detailed description and criticism of Ducrot and Anscombre’s semantic approach to argumentation.
- 20.
Their work is also well known in Spain, Portugal, and some Latin American countries (seeSects. 12.13 and12.14). A real protagonist is Žagar (1995,1996).
- 21.
- 22.
- 23.
Grize (1996, pp. 23–24) contrasts his own approach with that of Ducrot and Anscombre by indicating that, even if argumentative discourse makes use of orientations that are predetermined by language mechanisms, this is not the whole story: language provides the sociopsychological representations of those who make use of it.
- 24.
Ducrot (2004, pp. 17–19) makes a further distinction betweenlinguistic argumentation, which is the type of argumentation that he is interested in, andrhetorical argumentation, the verbal activity aimed at making someone believe something. In his view, there is no direct connection between the two types of argumentation.
- 25.
In “Argumentativity and informativity” Anscombre and Ducrot (1989) describe the evolution in their work.
- 26.
Verhagen (2007) gives a cognitive-linguistic elaboration of Ducrot and Anscombre’s theory. He argues that the meaning of grammatical constructions often has more to do with the human cognitive capacity for taking other people’s points of view than with describing the world.
- 27.
For a more detailed analysis of the difference between examples (6a) and (6b), see Anscombre and Ducrot (1989, pp. 90–91).
- 28.
Anscombre and Ducrot’s concept ofpolyphony stems from Bakhtin, who introduced it in literary theory. A detailed explanation of the polyphonic theory is given in Ducrot (1984, Chap. 8).
- 29.
The difference between the “speaker” and the “locutor” can be illustrated with the help of an example. Mary says: “Peter said I don’t know what to do.” In this example, the speaker, Mary, and the locutor referred to by “I,” Peter, are different people.
- 30.
The role of the enunciator, too, can be illustrated with the help of an example. Suppose a speaker narrating someone else’s experiences at an airport waiting impatiently for the arrival of his girlfriend: “First a man in a black hat comes out, then a group of teenagers, followed by two rather fat ladies, and then – at last – Joan appears.” In this example, the words “at last” cannot be attributed to the (uninvolved) reporting locutor, but they represent the perspective of an enunciator who expresses the waiting person’s relief at finally seeing his girlfriend.
- 31.
In an ordinary (unmarked) context, these twotopoi seem the most suitable. Of course, in some other context othertopoi might be relevant.
- 32.
- 33.
- 34.
Plantin is director of research at the CNRS (National Centre of Scientific Research) at the University Lyon 2 in France. His research is situated in the UMR ICAR (Interactions, Corpus, Apprentissages, Représentations).
- 35.
The name of the corpus of spoken language is CLAPI: Corpus de langue parlée en interaction.
- 36.
- 37.
In his discussion of Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca’s treatment of figures of speech inThe New Rhetoric, Plantin (2009b, p. 335) emphasizes the link between figures of speech and emotions. In his view, figures are to be analyzed as discourse strategies. “Emotive” figures such asexclamatio andaversio can play a crucial role in the discursive construction of emotions.
- 38.
Together with Rosalyn Koren, Amossy directs the research group ADARR (Analyse du Discours, Argumentation, Rhétorique), which focuses on discourse analysis, argumentation, and rhetoric. The ADARR group publishes the online journalArgumentation et Analyse du Discours, which appears twice a year. Amossy’s specialisms include French nineteenth and twentieth century literature, literary theory, argumentation theory, rhetoric, and discourse analysis.
- 39.
This approach todoxa is radically opposed to Roland Barthes conception ofendoxa, wheredoxa is considered to prevent genuine communication and hinder individual thinking (Barthes1988).
- 40.
According to Rigotti, the notion of hooking point corresponds with Boethius’s notion of “topical difference.”
References
Amossy, R. (1991).Les idées reçues. Sémiologie du stereotype [Generally accepted ideas. Semiology of the stereotype]. Paris: Nathan.
Amossy, R. (Ed.). (1999).Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’ethos [Self-images in discourse. The construction of ethos]. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestle.
Amossy, R. (2001).Ethos at the crossroads of disciplines. Rhetoric, pragmatics, sociology.Poetics Today, 22(1), 1–23.
Amossy, R. (2002). How to do things with doxa. Toward an analysis of argumentation in discourse.Poetics Today, 23(3), 465–487.
Amossy, R. (2005). The argumentative dimension of discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.),Argumentation in practice (pp. 87–98). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Amossy, R. (2006).L’argumentation dans le discours [Argumentation in discourse] (2nd ed.). Paris: Colin.
Amossy, R. (2009a). Argumentation in discourse. A socio-discursive approach to arguments.Informal Logic, 29(3), 252–267.
Amossy, R. (2010).La présentation de soi. Ethos et identité [Self-presentation. Ethos and identity]. Paris: Colin.
Amossy, R., & Herschberg Pierrot, A. (Eds.). (2011).Stéréotypes et clichés. Langue, discours, société [Stereotypes and clichés. Language, discourse, society] (3rd ed.). Paris: Colin
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983).L’Argumentation dans la langue [Argumentation in language]. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1989). Argumentativity and informativity. In M. Meyer (Ed.),From metaphysics to rhetoric (pp. 71–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Apothéloz, D., Brandt, P.-Y., & Quiroz, G. (1991). Champ et effets de la négation argumentative. Contre-argumentation et mise en cause [Domain and effects of argumentative negation. Counterargumentation and calling into question].Argumentation, 6(1), 99–113.
Atayan, V. (2006).Makrostrukturen der Argumentation im Deutschen, Französischen und Italienischen. Mit einem Vorwort von Oswald Ducrot [Macrostructures of argumentation in German, French and Italian. With a preface of Oswald Ducrot]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Barthes, R. (1988).The semiotic challenge (trans: Howard, R.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Bassano, D. (1991). Opérateurs et connecteurs argumentatifs: une approche psycholinguistique [Operators and argumentative connectives: A psycho-linguistic approach].Intellectia, 11, 149–191.
Bassano, D., & Champaud, C. (1987a). Argumentative and informative functions of French intensity modifierspresque (almost),à peine (just, barely) andà peu près (about). An experimental study of children and adults.Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 7, 605–631.
Bassano, D., & Champaud, C. (1987b). Fonctions argumentatives et informatives du langage. le traitement des modificateurs d’intensitéau moins,au plus etbien chez l’enfant et chez l’adulte [Argumentative and informative functions of language. The use of intensifiers (at least,at the most andwell) by children and adults].Archives de Psychologie, 55, 3–30.
Bassano, D., & Champaud, C. (1987c). La fonction argumentative des marques de la langue [The argumentative function of discourse markers].Argumentation, 1(2), 175–199.
Borel, M.-J. (1989). Norms in argumentation and natural logic. In R. Maier (Ed.),Norms in argumentation. Proceedings of the conference on norms 1988 (pp. 33–48). Dordrecht: Foris.
Borel, M.-J. (1991). Objets de discours et de représentation [Discourse and representation entities].Languages, 25, 36–50.
Borel, M.-J. (1992). Anthropological objects and negation.Argumentation, 6(1), 7–27.
Borel, M.-J., Grize, J.-B., & Miéville, D. (1983).Essai de logique naturelle [A treatise on natural logic]. Bern-Frankfurt-New York: Peter Lang.
Caffi, C. I., & Janney, R. W. (1994). Toward a pragmatics of emotive communication.Journal of Pragmatics, 22, 325–373.
Campos, M. (2010). La schématisation dans des contexts en réseau [The schematization in network contexts]. In D. Miéville (Ed.),La logique naturelle. Enjeux et perspectives (pp. 215–258). Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.
Carel, M. (1995).Pourtant: Argumentation by exception.Journal of Pragmatics, 24, 167–188.
Carel, M. (2001). Argumentation interne et argumentation externe au lexique. Despropriétés différentes [Argumentation that is internal and argumentation that is external to the lexicon. Different properties].Langages, 35(142), 10–21.
Carel, M. (2011).L’entrelacement argumentatif. Lexique, discours et blocs sémantiques [The argumentative interlacing. Lexicon, discourse and semantic blocks]. Paris: Honoré Champion.
Carel, M., & Ducrot, O. (1999). Le problème du paradoxe dans une sémantique argumentative [The problem of the paradox in argumentative semantics].Langue française, 123, 6–26.
Carel, M., & Ducrot, O. (2009). Mise au point sur la polyphonie [A clarification on polyphony].Langue française, 4, 33–43.
Culioli, A. (1990),Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Opérations et représentation, tome 1 [Towards a linguistics of the utterance. Operations and representation, Vol. 1]. Paris: Ophrys.
Culioli, A. (1999),Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation. Formalisation et opérations de repérage, tome 2 [Towards a linguistics of the utterance. Formalisation and identification operations, Vol. 2]. Paris: Ophrys.
Doury, M. (1997).Le débat immobile. L’Argumentation dans le débat médiatique surles parasciences. [The immobile debate. Argumentation in the media debate on the parasciences]. Paris: Kimé.
Doury, M. (2004a). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires [The classification of arguments in ordinary discourse].Langage, 154, 59–73.
Doury, M. (2004b). La position de l’analyste de l’argumentation [The position of the argumentation analyst].Semen, 17, 143–163.
Doury, M. (2005). The accusation ofamalgame as a meta-argumentative refutation. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.),The practice of argumentation (pp. 145–161). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Doury, M. (2006). Evaluating analogy. Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative norms. In P. Houtlosser & M. A. van Rees (Eds.),Considering pragma-dialectics. A festschrift for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday (pp. 35–49). Mahwah-London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doury, M. (2009). Argument schemes typologies in practice. The case of comparative arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.),Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 141–155). New York: Springer.
Ducrot, O. (1980).Les échelles argumentatives [Argumentative scales]. Paris: Minuit.
Ducrot, O. (1984).Le dire et le dit [The process and product of saying]. Paris: Minuit.
Ducrot, O. (1990).Polifonia y argumentacion [Polyphony and argumentation]. Cali: Universidad del Valle.
Ducrot, O. (2001). Critères argumentatifs et analyse lexicale.Langages, 35(142), 22–40.
Ducrot, O. (2004). Argumentation rhétorique et argumentation linguistique [Rhetorical and linguistic argumentation]. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (Eds.),L’Argumentation aujourd'hui. Positions thÕoriques en confrontation. [Argumentation today. Confrontation of theoretical positions] (pp. 17–34). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Ducrot, O., Bourcier, D., Bruxelles, S., Diller, A.-M., Foucquier, E., Gouazé, J., Maury, L., Nguyen, T. B., Nunes, G., Ragunet de Saint-Alban, L., Rémis, A., & Sirdar-Iskander, C. (1980).Les mots du discours [The words of discourse]. Paris: Minuit.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1992a).Argumentation, communication, and fallacies. A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum (trans. into Bulgarian (2006), Chinese (2002), Italian (2008), Spanish (2011)).
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1994). Argumentation theory. In J. Verschueren & J. Blommaert (Eds.),Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 55–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004).A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Houtlosser, P. (2002). Strategic maneuvering with the burden of proof. In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.),Advances in pragma-dialectics (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam-Newport News: Sic Sat/Vale Press.
Gattico, E. (2009).Communicazione, categorie e metafore. Elementi di analisi delDiscorso [Communication, categories and metaphors. Elements of discourse analysis]. Cagliari: CUEC Editrice.
Gomez Diaz, L. M. (1991). Remarks on Jean-Blaise Grize’s logics of argumentation. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Proceedings of the second international conference on argumentation, 1A/B (pp. 123–132). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Greco Morasso, S. (2011).Argumentation in dispute mediation. A reasonable way to handle conflict. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Grize, J.-B. (1982).De la logique à l’argumentation [From logic to argumentation]. Genève: Librairie Droz.
Grize, J.-B. (1986). Raisonner en parlant [Reasoning while speaking]. In M. Meyer (Ed.),De la metaphysique à la rhétorique (pp. 45–55). Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Grize, J.-B. (1996).Logique naturelle et communications [Natural logic and communications]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Grize, J.-B. (2004). Le point de vue de la logique naturelle. Démontrer, prouver, argumenter [The point of view of natural logic. Demonstrating, proving, arguing]. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (Eds.),L’argumentation aujourd’hui. Positions théoriques en confrontation [ Argumentation today. Confrontation of theoretical positions] (pp. 35–44). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Herman, T. (2010). Linguistique textuelle et logique naturelle [Textual linguistics and natural logic]. In D. Miéville (Ed.),La logique naturelle. Enjeux et perspectives. (Actes du colloque Neuchâtel 12–13 septembre 2008) [Natural logic. Challenges and perspectives] (pp. 167–194)). Neuchâtel: Université de Neuchâtel.
Iten, C. (2000). The relevance of argumentation theory.Lingua, 110(9), 665–699.
Koren, R., & Amossy, R. (Eds.), (2002).Après Perelman. Quelles politiques pour les nouvelles rhétoriques? [After Perelman. Which policies for the new rhetorics?]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Lausberg, H. (1960).Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik [Handbook of literary rhetoric]. Munich: Max Hueber.
Lundquist, L. (1987). Towards a procedural analysis of argumentative operators in texts. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Argumentation: Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the conference on argumentation 1986 (pp. 61–69). Dordrecht-Providence: Foris Publications.
Maier, R. (1989). Natural logic and norms in argumentation. In R. Maier (Ed.),Norms in argumentation. Proceedings of the conference on norms 1988 (pp. 49–65). Dordrecht: Foris (PDA 8).
Meyer, M. (1986b).From logic to rhetoric (trans:Logique, langage et argumentation. Paris: Hachette, 1982). Pragmatics and beyond VII: 3. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [trans. of M. Meyer (1982a).Logique, Langage et Argumentation. Paris: Hachette, 1982].
Moeschler, J., & Spengler, N. de (1982). La concession ou la réfutation interdite. Approche argumentative et conversationelle [Concessions or the prohibition of refutations. An argumentative and conversational approach]. InConcession et consécution dans le discours (Cahiers de Linguistique Française 4, pp. 7–36). Geneva: Université de Genève (trans. of M. Meyer, 1982a,Logique, langage et argumentation. Paris: Hachette, 1982).
Nølke, H. (1992). Semantic constraints on argumentation. From polyphonic microstructure to argumentative macro-structure. In A. Willard, F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & A. Willard (Eds.),Argumentation illuminated (pp. 189–200). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Palmieri, R. (2009). Regaining trust through argumentation in the context of the current financial-economic crisis.Studies in Communication Sciences, 9(2), 59–78.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969).The new rhetoric. A treatise on argumentation. (trans: Wilkinson, J. & Weaver, P.). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. (original work 1958). [English trans. ofLa nouvelle rhétorique.Traité de l’argumentation]
Piaget, J. (1923).Le langage et la pensée chez l'enfant [Language and thinking of children]. Neuchâtel: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Piaget, J., & Beth, E. W. (1961).Epistémologie mathématique et psychologie. Essai sur les relations entre la logique formelle et la pensée réelle [Mathematical epistemology and psychology. Study on the relation between formal logic and natural thought]. Paris: PUF, EEG XiV.
Plantin, C. (1990).Essais sur l'argumentation. Introduction à l’étude linguistique de la parole argumentative [Essays on argumentation. Introduction to the linguistic study of argumentative speech]. Paris: Éditions Kimé.
Plantin, C. (1995). L’argument du paralogisme [The fallacy argument].Hermès, 15, 245–262.
Plantin, C. (1997). L’argumentation dans l’émotion [Argumentation in the emotion].Pratiques, 96, 81–99.
Plantin, C. (2002). Argumentation studies and discourse analysis. The French situation and global perspectives.Discourse Studies, 4(3), 343–368.
Plantin, C. (2003). Argumentation studies in France. A new legitimacy. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.),Anyone who has a view. Theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation (pp. 173–187). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Plantin, C. (2004a). On the inseparability of emotion and reason in argumentation. In E. Weigand (Ed.),Emotions in dialogic interactions (pp. 265–275). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Plantin, C. (2004b). Situation des études d’argumentation. De délégitimations en réinventions [The situation of argumentation studies. From de-authorization to reinvention]. In M. Doury & S. Moirand (Eds.),L’Argumentation aujourd'hui.Positions théoriques en confrontation [Argumentation today. Confrontation of theoretical positions] (pp. 160–181). Paris: Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Plantin, C. (2005).L’argumentation. Histoire, théories, perspectives [Argumentation. History, theories, perspectives]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. [trans.: Marcionilo, M. of C. Plantin (2008),A argumentaÓÐo. História, teorias, perspectivas. SÐo Paulo: ParÃbola.
Plantin, C. (2009a). Critique de la parole. Les fallacies dans le procès argumentatif [Criticism of what is said. The fallacies in the argumentative process]. In V. Atayan & D. Pirazzini (Eds.),Argumentation. Théorie – Langue – Discours. Actes de la section ‘Argumentation’ du XXX. Deutscher Romanistentag, Vienne, Septembre 2007 [Argumentation. Theory - language - discourse] (pp. 51–70). Frankfurt: Peter Lang Verlag.
Plantin, C. (2009b). A place for figures of speech in argumentation theory.Argumentation, 23(3), 325–337.
Plantin, C. (2010). Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives [Instruments for the structuring of argumentative sequences].Verbum, 32(1), 31–51.
Plantin, C. (2011).Les bonnes raisons des émotions. Arguments, fallacies, affects [The good reasons of emotions. Arguments, fallacies, affects]. Bern: Peter Lang.
Plantin, C., Doury, M., & Traverso, V. (2000).Les émotions dans les interactions [Emotions in interactions]. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de Lyon.
Puig, L. (2012). Doxa and persuasion in lexis.Argumentation, 26(1), 127–142.
Quiroz, G., Apothéloz, D., & Brandt, P.-Y. (1992). How counter-argumentation works. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Argumentation illuminated (pp. 172–177). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Rigotti, E. (2009). Whether and how classical topics can be revived within contemporary argumentation theory. In F. H. van Eemeren & B. Garssen (Eds.),Pondering on problems of argumentation (pp. 157–178). New York: Springer.
Rigotti, E., & Greco, S. (2006).Topics. The argument generator. Argumentum e-learning Module.www.argumentum.ch.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2009). Argumentation as an object of interest and as a social and cultural resource. In N. Muller-Mirza & A. N. Perret-Clermont (Eds.),Argumentation and education (pp. 9–66). New York: Springer.
Rigotti, E., & Greco Morasso, S. (2010). Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes. The procedural and material components.Argumentation, 24(4), 489–512.
Rigotti, E., & Rocci, A. (2005). From argument analysis to cultural keywords (and back again). In F. H. van Eemeren & P. Houtlosser (Eds.),Argumentation in practice (pp. 125–142). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Rocci, A. (2008). Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation.Argumentation, 22, 165–189.
Rocci, A. (2009). Manoeuvring with voices. The polyphonic framing of arguments in an institutional advertisement. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.),Examining argumentation in context. Fifteen studies on strategic maneuvering (pp. 257–283). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). Les émotions. Fonctions et composantes [Emotions. Functions and components].Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 4, 9–39.
Sitri, F. (2003).L’objet du débat. La construction des objets de discours dans des situations argumentatives orales [The subject of the debate. The construction of discourse entities in oral argumentative situations]. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1995a).Anyway andeven as indicators of argumentative structure. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation (Vol. III, pp. 183–191). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (1995b). But as an indicator of counter-arguments and concessions.Leuvense Bijdragen, 84, 281–294.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003).The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (1st ed. 1958).
Ungerer, F. (1997). Emotions and emotional language in English and German newsstories. In S. Niemeier & R. Dirven (Eds.),The language of emotions. Conceptualization, expression, and theoretical foundation (pp. 307–328). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Verbiest, A. E. M. (1994). A new source of argumentative indicators? In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.),Studies in pragma-dialectics (pp. 180–187). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Verhagen, A. (2007).Constructions of intersubjectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1997).Emotions across languages and cultures. Diversity and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Žagar, I. Ž. (Ed.). (1996).Slovenian lectures. Introduction into argumentative semantics. Ljubljana: ISH.
Žagar, I. Ž. (1995). Argumentation in language opposed to argumentation with language. Some problems. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair & C. A. Willard (Eds.),Reconstruction and application. Proceedings of the third international conference on argumentation (Vol. III, pp. 200–218). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this entry
Cite this entry
van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E.C.W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.F., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.H.M. (2013). Linguistic Approaches. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6883-3_9-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6883-3_9-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6883-3
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities