, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 659–668 | Cite as

Giving Reasons Does Not Always Amount to Arguing

  • Lilian Bermejo-LuqueEmail author


Both because of the vagueness of the word ‘give’ when speaking about giving reasons, and because we lack an adequate definition of ‘reasons’, there is a harmful ambiguity in the expression ‘giving reasons’. Particularly, straightforwardly identifying argumentation with reasons giving would make of virtually any interplay a piece of argumentation. Besides, if we adopt the mainstream definition of reasons as “considerations that count in favour of doing or believing something”, then only good argumentation would count as argumentation. In this paper, I defend a qualified characterization of argumentation as reasons giving that is shown to be fruitful for shedding light on the practice of giving reasons, and an inferentialist conception of reasons that makes room for speaking of “bad reasons” and, consequently, makes it possible to talk of argumentation as reasons giving even if we are talking about bad argumentation.


Argumentation Reasons Giving reasons LNMA Inferring Argumentative speech-acts 



I wish to thank Javier Rodríguez Alcázar and the Topoi reviewers of this paper for their insightful comments and criticisms. The work presented in this paper has been financed by a Ramón y Cajal Research Fellowship and by the research Project FFI2014-54681-P of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.


  1. Álvarez M (2010) Kinds of reasons: an essay in the philosophy of action. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bach K, Harnish RM (1979) Linguistic communication and speech-acts. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bermejo-Luque L (2011) Giving reasons. A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  4. Birdsell D, Groarke L (1996) Introduction: argumentation and advocacy. J Am Forensic Assoc 33:1–10Google Scholar
  5. Black M (1964) Critical thinking. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  6. Campolo C (2005) Treacherous ascents: on seeking common ground for conflict resolution. Informal Logic 25:37–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Copi IM, Cohen C (1990) Introduction to logic, 8th edn. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert M (1997) Coalescent argumentation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamblin C (1970) Fallacies. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Harman G (1986) Change in view. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. McKeon M (2013) On the rationale for distinguishing arguments from explanations. Argumentation 27:283–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pinto R (1995) The relation of argument to inference. In: van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Blair JA, Willard CA (eds) Perspectives and approaches. Proceedings of the third ISSA conference on argumentation, vol I. SicSat, Amsterdam, pp 271–286Google Scholar
  13. Simard Smith P, Moldovan A (2011) Arguments as abstract objects. Informal Logic 31(3):230–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Turner D, Wright L (2005) Revisiting deep disagreement. Informal Logic 25:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1984) Speech-acts in argumentative discussions. A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Foris, Dordrech/Mounton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (1992) Argumentation, communication and fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  17. Walton D (1989) Informal logic: a handbook for critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy IUniversity of GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations