Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The Case of Comparative Arguments

  • Marianne Doury
Part of the Argumentation Library book series (ARGA, volume 14)

Most studies dealing with analogy or comparison emphasize the pervasive character of the discursive processes they refer to, and regret the lack of any satisfactory theoretical account for them. The present paper tries to take a more positive stance: it starts from the many insightful essays on comparative arguments and proposes to make them enter into dialogue with actual argumentative practices.


Epistemic Status Argument Scheme Argumentative Discussion Domain Constraint Comparative Argument 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation Dans le Discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  2. Authier-Revuz, J. (1982). Hétérogénéité montrée et hétérogénéité constitutive: éléments pour une approche de l’autre dans le discours. DRLAV, 26, 91–151.Google Scholar
  3. Blanché, R. (1973). Le Raisonnement. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
  4. Borel, M.-J. (1977). Objet, notion, concept et analogie. Discours et Analogies (LADII), n°30, Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, Neuchâtel, pp. 47–147.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, W. R. (1989). Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic, 11, 161–172.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, W. R. (1995). The domain constraint on analogy and analogical arguments. InformalLogic, 17(1), 89–100.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Declercq, G. (1992). L’art D’argumenter. Structures Rhétoriques et Littéraires. Paris: Editions Universitaires.Google Scholar
  9. Doury, M. (2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langage, 154, 59–73.Google Scholar
  10. Doury, M. (2006). Evaluating analogy: Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative Norms. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 35–49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Ducrot, O. (1980). Analyse de textes et linguistique de l’énonciation. In O. Ducrot (Ed.), Les Mots du Discours (pp. 7–56). Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
  12. Eggs, E. (1994). Grammaire du Discours Argumentatif. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
  13. Garssen, B. (1994). Recognizing argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 105–111). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  14. Garssen B. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances inPragma-Dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: SicSat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  15. Govier, T. (1985). Logical Analogies. Informal Logic, 7(1), 27–33.Google Scholar
  16. Govier, T. (1989). Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic, 11(3), 141–152.Google Scholar
  17. Govier, T. (2001). A Practical Study of Argument (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  18. Guarini, M. (2004). A defence of non-deductive reconstruction of analogical arguments. Informal Logic, 24(2), 153–168.Google Scholar
  19. Hamblin, C. L. (1970/2004). Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, F. (1989). Analogical arguings and explainings. Informal Logic, 11(3), 153–160.Google Scholar
  21. Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2005). Le Discours en Interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  23. Kienpointner, M. (1992). How to classify arguments. In F. H. van Emeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (pp. 178–188). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  24. Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1988). Traité de L’argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Bruxelles: éditions de l’université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  25. Plantin, C. (1996). L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil (Mémo).Google Scholar
  26. Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (Que Sais-je?).Google Scholar
  27. Schellens, J. (1985). Redelijke Argumenten. Een Onderzoek naar Normen voor Kritische Lezers (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht, 1985).Google Scholar
  28. Snoeck Henkemans, A .F. (2003). Indicators of analogy argumentation. In F. H. van Emeren, J. A. Blair, C. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 969–973). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  29. Traverso, V. (1996). La Conversation Familiëre. Lyon: PUL.Google Scholar
  30. van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2002), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  31. van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation nalysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  32. Waller, B. N. (2001). Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic, 21(3), 199–218.Google Scholar
  33. Whaley, B. B. (1998). Evaluation of rebuttal analogy users: Ethical and competence considerations. Argumentation, 12, 351–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Woods, J., & Hudak, B. (1989). By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic, 11(3), 125–139.Google Scholar
  35. Woods, J., & Hudak, B. (1992). Verdi is the Puccini of music. Synthese, 92, 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marianne Doury

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations