Volume 18, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


Argument is a structured phenomenon, the structuring of which is evident in conversational activity. This study begins with speech act analyses of argumentation and examines the was in which idealized models of argumentation relate to the linguistic behaviour of participants in argument as talk. While a speech act understanding of arguments reveals some of the basic principles of the ways in which arguments are constructed as talk, sequencing patterns of arguments are interactionally accomplished. Speakers produce turns which are related to their purpose in talking and which include speech act complexes appropriate for the perlocutionary act of convincing. This limits the range of choices for a speaker in the sequence of interaction. Turns which do not count as appropriate for the task of arguing are accountable.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Coulter, J.
    (1990) Elementary properties of argument sequences. In G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction competence. Lanham, University of America Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Gardner, R.
    (ed) (1995) Spoken interaction studies in Australia. (ARAL Series N° 12) Canberra, ALAA.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Goffman, E.
    (1971) Relations in public. Microstudies of the public order. New York, Harper and Rowe.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Goodwin, C. and M. Goodwin
    (1990) Interstitial argument. In A.D. Grimshaw (ed.) Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Grootendorst, R.
    (1990) Everyday argumentation from a speech act perspective. Communication and Cognition24,1: 111–134.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Jackson, S. and S. Jacobs
    (1980) Structure of conversational argumentation: Pragmatic bases for the enthymeme. Quarterly Journal of Speech66: 251–165. doi: 10.1080/00335638009383524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638009383524 [Google Scholar]
  7. (1982) Conversational argumentation: A discourse analytic approach. In J.R. Cox and C.A. Willard (eds) Advances in Argumentation Research. Carbondale, Ill, Southern Illinois University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jacobs, S.
    (1987) The management of disagreement in conversation. In F.H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard (eds).
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1989) Speech acts and arguments. Argumentation3: 345–365. doi: 10.1007/BF00182603
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00182603 [Google Scholar]
  10. Jefferson, G.
    (1984) Notes on a systematic deployment of the acknowledgement tokens ‘yeah’ and ‘mm hm’. Papers in Linguistics17, 2, 197–216. doi: 10.1080/08351818409389201
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351818409389201 [Google Scholar]
  11. Legge, N.J.
    (1988) The management of interpersonal disputes within friendships: An analysis of discursive practices. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Pennsylvania State University.
  12. Liddicoat, A.J. , S. Döpke , K. Love and A. Brown
    (1994) Presenting a point of view: Callers’ contributions to talkback radio in Australia. Journal of Pragmatics. 22: 139–156. doi: 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90064‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90064-7 [Google Scholar]
  13. Piaget, J.
    (1966) La langue et la pensée chez l’ enfant: Etudes sur la logique de l’ enfant. Neuchatel, Delachaux and Niestle.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J.M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds) Structures of social action: Studies in conversational analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sacks, H.
    (1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and social organization. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (1992) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Schiffrin, D.
    (1984) Jewish argument as sociability. Language in Society13: 311–335. doi: 10.1017/S0047404500010526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500010526 [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985) Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysisvol.3. London, Academic.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Stubbs, M.
    (1983) Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Tannen, D.
    (1981) New York Jewish conversational style. International Journal of the Sociology of Language30: 133–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Toulmin, S.E.
    (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. van Eemeren, F.H. and R. Grootendorst
    (1984) Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht, Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  23. (1992) Argumentation, communication and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. van Eemeren, F.H. and T. Kruiger
    (1987) Identifying argumentation schemes. In F.H. van Eemeren , R. Grootendorst , J. A. Blair and C.A. Willard (eds). doi: 10.1515/9783110869163.70
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869163.70 [Google Scholar]
  25. van Eemeren, F.H. , R. Grootendorst , J.A. Blair and C.A. Willard
    (eds) (1987) Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches. Dordrecht, Foris. doi: 10.1515/9783110869163
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110869163 [Google Scholar]
  26. van Eemeren, F.H. , R. Grootendorst , S. Jackson and S. Jacobs
    (1993) Reconstructing argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error