Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The aim of this paper is to explore the status of argumentative discourse. We argue that argumentation can contribute to instances of different discourse genres, regardless of whether it is functional to their purposes. By analyzing examples from the daily press in the light of an approach to discourse analysis inspired by pragmatics, we show that also texts that are not expected to be argumentative have underlying argumentative structures and that a text’s being argumentative is a matter of degree: the understanding of underlying argumentative structures contributes to a varying extent to the understanding of what a text as a whole means and of its point in the speech situation. This role of argumentative structures in text understanding suggests considering argumentation as a cognitively-based dimension of discourse, connected to human rationality.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Amossy, Ruth
    2005 The argumentative dimension of discourse. InFrans H. van Eemeren & Peter Houtlosser (eds.), Practices of argumentation, 87–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cvs.2.08amo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cvs.2.08amo [Google Scholar]
  2. 2009 Argumentation in discourse: A socio-discursive approach to arguments. Informal Logic29(3). 252–267. 10.22329/il.v29i3.2843
    https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v29i3.2843 [Google Scholar]
  3. Antelmi, Donatella & Francesca Santulli
    2012 Arbitration awards in Italy: Some argumentative features in the discourse analytical perspective. InVijay Bhatia, Giulia Garzone & Chiara Degano (eds.), Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realisations, 91–108. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaugrande, Robert de & Wolfgang U. Dressler
    1981Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhatia, Vijay
    1987 Textual-mapping in British legislative writing. World Englishes. 6(1). 1–10. 10.1111/j.1467‑971X.1987.tb00172.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1987.tb00172.x [Google Scholar]
  6. 1993Analysing genre-language use in professional settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2004Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatia, Vijay, Giulia Garzone & Chiara Degano
    (eds.) 2012Arbitration awards: Generic features and textual realisations. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, Douglas
    1989 A typology of English texts. Linguistics. 27(1). 3–43. 10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Robert Grootendorst
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions. Dordrecht: Foris. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2004A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Bart Garssen, Eric C. W. Krabbe, Francisca A. Snoeck Henkemans, Bart Verheij & Jean H. Wagemans
    2014Handbook of argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9473‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Eemeren, Frans H. van, Robert Grootendorst & Tjark Kruiger
    1984The study of argumentation. New York: Irvington.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Freeman, James B.
    2001 Argument structure and disciplinary perspective. Argumentation. 15(14). 397–423. 10.1023/A:1012022330148
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012022330148 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2011Argument structure: Representation and theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑0357‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0357-5 [Google Scholar]
  16. Greimas, Algirdas & Joseph Courtés
    1979Sémiotique: Dictionnaire raisonné de la theorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Grice, Paul H.
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter J. Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics, vol.3, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Reprinted inP. Grice 1989 Studies in the ways of words, 22–40. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 1991The conception of value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Hatim, Basil & Ian Mason
    1990Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hitchcock, David
    2017On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and critical thinking. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑53562‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53562-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. Johnson, Ralph H.
    2000Manifest rationality: A pragmatic theory of argument. Mahwah, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber
    2011 Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 34(22). 57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  24. Miller, Carolyn
    1984 Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech. 70(2). 151–167. 10.1080/00335638409383686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  25. Santulli, Francesca
    2008 La sentenza come genere testuale: Narrazione, argomentazione, performatività. InGiuliana Garzone & Francesca Santulli (eds.), Il linguaggio giuridico: prospettive interdisciplinari, 207–238. Milano: Giuffrè.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Sbisà, Marina
    1989Linguaggio, ragione, interazione: Per una pragmatica degli atti linguistici. Bologna: Il Mulino; second digital edition by Edizioni Università di Trieste 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2002 Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences. InAnita Fetzer & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 71–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.103.04sbi [Google Scholar]
  28. 2006 Two conceptions of rationality in Grice’s theory of implicature. InElvio Baccarini & Snježana Prijić-Samaržija (eds.), Rationality of belief and action, 233–247. Rijeka: University of Rijeka.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2007a On argumentative rationality. Anthropology & Philosophy. 8(1/2). 89–99.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 2007bDetto non detto: Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Roma-Bari: Laterza.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 2018 Philosophical pragmatics. InAndreas H. Jucker, ‎Klaus P. Schneider & ‎Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics (Handbook of Pragmatics 10), 133–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110424928‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-005 [Google Scholar]
  32. Toulmin, Stephen
    2003The uses of argument. Updated edition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. First edition 1958 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  33. Trosborg, Anna
    (ed.) 1997 Text typology: Register, genre and text type. InAnna Trosborg (ed.), Text Typology and Translation, 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.26.03tro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.26.03tro [Google Scholar]
  34. Walton, Douglas
    1998The New Dialectic: Conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 10.3138/9781442681859
    https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442681859 [Google Scholar]
  35. Werlich, Egon
    1983A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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