Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2213-1272
  • E-ISSN: 2213-1280



The introduction to this special issue provides an overview of the notion of disagreement in relation to argumentative practices and presents the rationale for investigating disagreement management in argumentative discourse from a pragmatic perspective. It describes how existing accounts of disagreement in argumentation have focused on limited instances of the phenomenon, both in terms of its pragmatic embedding (which has predominantly focused on assertive speech acts) and of its scope (which usually covers the normative dimension of argumentative quality). The contributions to this special issue are then presented and contextualised within this broader topic to expound how each of them addresses key pragmatic aspects of disagreement management in argumentative discourse.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey
    2022aStraw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory. London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 10.5040/9781350065031
    https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350065031 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2022b “Argumentation and the Problem of Agreement.” Synthese200 (2): 134. 10.1007/s11229‑022‑03680‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-022-03680-4 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aikin, Scott F., and Robert B. Talisse
    2018Why we Argue (and How we Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in the Age of Unreason. Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315110493
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315110493 [Google Scholar]
  4. Austin, John
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bermejo Luque, Lilian, and Andrei Moldovan
    eds. 2021 “Speech Acts and Argumentation.” Special issue. Informal Logic41 (3). https://informallogic.ca/index.php/informal_logic/issue/view/649
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen, and Maarten van Leeuwen
    eds. 2021The Language of Argumentation. Argumentation Library 36. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑52907‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52907-9 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  8. Castro Amenábar, Diego
    2022 “Argumentation and Disagreement: A Pluralistic Approach.” University of Groningen. 10.33612/diss.219238903
    https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.219238903 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chalmers, David J.
    2011 “Verbal Disputes.” The Philosophical Review120 (4): 515–566. 10.1215/00318108‑1334478
    https://doi.org/10.1215/00318108-1334478 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans van
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the Pragma-Dialectical Theory of Argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, Scott Jacobs, and Sally A. Jackson
    1993Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Eemeren, Frans van, and Peter Houtlosser
    2006 “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation20 (4): 381–392. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9037‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9037-z [Google Scholar]
  15. Eemeren, Frans van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Vol.121. Argumentation Library. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Goodwin, Jean
    2001 “The Noncooperative Pragmatics of Arguing.” InPragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol.21, edited byE. T. Németh, 263–277. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Goodwin, Jean, and Beth Innocenti
    2019 “The Pragmatic Force of Making an Argument.” Topoi38 (4): 669–680. 10.1007/s11245‑019‑09643‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09643-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grice, Herbert Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 31:41–58. New York: Academic Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hardaker, Claire
    2010 “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research6 (2): 215–242. 10.1515/jplr.2010.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2010.011 [Google Scholar]
  20. Herman, Thierry, and Steve Oswald
    eds. 2014Rhétorique et Cognition: Perspectives Théoriques et Stratégies Persuasives / Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies’. Bilingual edition. Sciences Pour La Communication 112. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0352‑0271‑7
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0352-0271-7 [Google Scholar]
  21. Herman, Thierry, Jérôme Jacquin, and Steve Oswald
    eds. 2018Les mots de l’argumentation. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/b14941
    https://doi.org/10.3726/b14941 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2022 “‘You Want Me to Be Wrong’: Expert Ethos, (de-)Legitimation, and Ethotic Straw Men as Discursive Resources for Conspiracy Theories.”. InConspiracy Theory Discourses, edited byMassimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi, and Angela Zottola, 981:99–120???. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.98.05her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.05her [Google Scholar]
  23. Hinton, Martin
    2021Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑61694‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61694-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Imam, Ahmed Al
    2017 “Who Is the GOAT: Jordan, Bryant, or King James? An Inference Based on Data Crunching of the Surface Web.” Journal of Athletic Enhancement06 (05). 10.4172/2324‑9080.1000270
    https://doi.org/10.4172/2324-9080.1000270 [Google Scholar]
  25. Innocenti, Beth
    2022 “Demanding a Halt to Metadiscussions.” Argumentation36 (3): 345–364. 10.1007/s10503‑022‑09569‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-022-09569-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Jackson, Sally
    1992 “Virtual Standpoints and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument.” InArgumentation Illuminated, edited byFrans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 11:260–269. Amsterdam: Sicsat.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobs, Scott
    1987 “The Management of Disagreement in Conversation.” InAcross the Lines of Disciplines, edited byFrans Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Anthony Blair, 229–240. Amsterdam: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110867718.229
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867718.229 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2000 “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation14 (3): 261–286. 10.1023/A:1007853013191
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007853013191 [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson
    1982 “Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach.” InAdvances in Argumentation Theory and Research, edited byJR Cox and Charles Willard, 205–237. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 1992 “Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach.” Argumentation6 (2): 161–176. 10.1007/BF00154323
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154323 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jacobs, Scott, Sally Jackson, and Xiaoqi Zhang
    2022 “What Was the President’s Standpoint and When Did He Take It? A Normative Pragmatic Study of Standpoint Emergence in a Presidential Press Conference.” Languages7 (2): 153. 10.3390/languages7020153
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020153 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kauffeld, Fred
    1998 “Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.” Argumentation12 (2): 245–266. 10.1023/A:1007704116379
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007704116379 [Google Scholar]
  33. Leech, Geoffrey N.
    2014The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341386.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Lewiński, Marcin, and Pedro Abreu
    2022 “Arguing About ‘COVID’: Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts as a ‘COVID-19 Death.’” InThe Pandemic of Argumentation, edited bySteve Oswald, Marcin Lewiński, Sara Greco, and Serena Villata, 431: 17–41. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑91017‑4_2
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91017-4_2 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lewiński, Marcin, Bianca Cepollaro, Steve Oswald, and Maciej Witek
    eds. 2023 “Norms of Public Argument: A Speech Act Perspective.” Special Issue. Topoi42 (2). 10.1007/s11245‑023‑09918‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-023-09918-1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Luginbühl, Martin, and Judith Kreuz
    2020 “From Flat Propositions to Deep Co-Constructed and Modalized Argumentations: Oral Argumentative Skills among Elementary School Children from Grades 2 to 6.” Research on Children and Social Interaction4 (1): 93–114. 10.1558/rcsi.12416
    https://doi.org/10.1558/rcsi.12416 [Google Scholar]
  37. Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure
    2008 “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics221: 197–219. 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
  38. Mundwiler, Vera, and Judith Kreuz
    2018 “Collaborative Decision-Making in Argumentative Group Discussions among Primary School Children.” InArgumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, 263–285. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_12
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_12 [Google Scholar]
  39. Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel de, and Steve Oswald
    2022 “On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning – A Pragmatic Approach.” Languages8 (1): 6. 10.3390/languages8010006
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8010006 [Google Scholar]
  40. Oswald, Steve
    2016 “Commitment Attribution and the Reconstruction of Arguments.” InThe Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, edited byFabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 591:17–32. Studies in Logic and Argumentation. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. ed. 2022 “Pragmatics and Argumentation.” Special issue. Languages71.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. 2023a ‘Pragmatics for Argumentation’. Journal of Pragmatics2031 (January): 144–156. 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2023b “The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface.” Languages8 (3): 210. 10.3390/languages8030210
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages8030210 [Google Scholar]
  44. Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin
    eds. 2018Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4 [Google Scholar]
  45. Oswald, Steve, and Marcin Lewiński
    2014 “Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy.” InRhétorique et Cognition: Perspectives Théoriques et Stratégies Persuasives – Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, edited byThierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Sciences Pour La Communication 112. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Plunkett, David
    2015 “Which Concepts Should we Use?: Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry58 (7–8): 828–874. 10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2015.1080184 [Google Scholar]
  47. Pollaroli, Chiara, Sara Greco, Steve Oswald, Johanna Miecznikowski, and Andrea Rocci
    eds. 2019Rhetoric and Language: Emotions and Style in Argumentative Discourse (Special Issue of Informal Logic 39:4).
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Rocci, Andrea, Sara Greco, Rebecca Schär, Josephine Convertini, Anne-Nelly Perret-Clermont, and Antonio Iannaccone
    2020 “The Significance of the Adversative Connectives Aber, Mais, Ma (“but”) as Indicators in Young Children’s Argumentation.” Journal of Argumentation in Context9 (1): 69–94. 10.1075/jaic.00008.roc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00008.roc [Google Scholar]
  49. Schumann, Jennifer
    2022a “The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies. An Experimental Approach.” Bern: University of Bern.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2022b “Do People Perceive the Disagreement in Straw Man Fallacies? An Experimental Investigation.” Languages7 (2): 111. 10.3390/languages7020111
    https://doi.org/10.3390/languages7020111 [Google Scholar]
  51. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  52. Weger, Harry, and Mark Aakhus
    2005 “Competing Demands, Multiple Ideals, and the Structure of Argumentation Practices: A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of Televised Town Hall Meetings Following the Murder Trial of O.J. Simpson.” InArgumentation in Practice, edited byFrans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 21: 181–195. Controversies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.15weg
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.15weg [Google Scholar]
  53. Zenker, Frank, Jan Albert Van Laar, B. Cepollaro, A. Gâţă, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson,
    2023 “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation, March. 10.1007/s10503‑023‑09598‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-023-09598-6 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; disagreement; meaning-making resources; pragmatics
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