Cover not available

In:Argumentation in Actual Practice: Topical studies about argumentative discourse in context
Edited by Frans H. van Eemeren and Bart Garssen
[Argumentation in Context 17] 2019
► pp. 13–32

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 2
Analyzing versus interpreting argumentation

A clear-cut opposition or two poles on a continuous line?

 | CNRS, France
Published online: 23 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.17.02dou
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interpreting argumentation
  • 3.The data
  • 4.The academic analyst’s point of view on the sequence
    • Contextual elements
    • A slippery slope argument
  • 5.The commentators’ interpretations of the sequence
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Amossy, R. (2010). L’argumentation dans le discours (3rd ed.). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angenot, M. (2008). Dialogues de sourds. Traité de rhétorique antilogique. Paris: Mille et une nuits.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, R., & Kim, M. (2015). Challenges and Remedies for Identifying and Classifying Argumentation Schemes. Argumentation, 29, 81–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Auricchio, A., Masseron, C., & Perrin-Schirmer, C. (1992). La polyphonie des discours argumentatifs: propositions didactiques. Pratiques, 73, 7–50. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bailin, S. (1991). Argumentation as Inquiry. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2d International Conference on Argumentation. June 19-22, 1990 (pp. 64–69). Amsterdam: Sicsat/Issa.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blair, J. A. (2004). Argument and its uses. Informal Logic, 24–2, 137–151.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breton, P. (1996). L’argumentation dans la communication. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Eloge de la parole. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Charolles, M. (1980). Les formes directes et indirectes de l’argumentation. Pratiques, 28, 7–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danblon, E. (2005). La fonction persuasive. Anthropologie du discours rhétorique: origines et actualité. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doury, M. (2003). L’évaluation des arguments dans les discours ordinaires: le cas de l’accusation d’amalgame. Langage et société, 105, 9–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langages, 154, 59–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Preaching to the converted. Why argue when everyone agrees? Argumentation, 26-1, 99–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Le marquage langagier des types d’arguments. Le cas de l’argumentation par l’absurde. In J. Jacquin, T. Herman, & S. Oswald (Eds.), Les mots de l’argumentation (pp. 27–55). Berne: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. (2014). Bingo! Promising Developments in Argumentation Theory. In B. Garssen, D. Godden, G. Mitchell, F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 1408–1428). Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (1984). Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflict of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1991). Making the best of argumentative discourse. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Argumentation (pp. 431–440). Amsterdam: Sic Sat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., & Meuffels, B. (2002). Ordinary arguers’ judgments on ad hominem fallacies. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 45–64). Amsterdam, SicSat / Newport News (Virginia), Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., Kruiger, T. (1987). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. A critical Survey of Classical Backgrounds and Modern Studies. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, F. (2007). Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. A Pragma-Dialectical Study. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H. et al. (2014). Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fogelin, R. J. (2005). The Logic of deep disagreement. Informal Logic, 25-1, 3–11.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garssen, B. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: SicSat, Newport News (Virginia): Vale Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godden, D., & Walton, D. (2007). Advances in the theory of argumentation schemes and critical questions. Informal Logic, 27(3), 267–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, T. (1982). What’s wrong with Slippery Slope Arguments?. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 12–2, , 303–316. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1987). Problems in Argument Analysis and Evaluation. Dordrecht / Providence: Foris Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). A practical study of argument (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grossman, F. (1999). Littératie, compréhension et interprétation des textes. Repères, 19, 139–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, S. (1989). What can argumentative practice tell us about argumentation norms ?. In R. Maier (Ed.), Norms in argumentation. Proceedings of the Conference on Norms 1988 (pp. 113–122). Dordrecht (Holland) / Providence (USA), Foris publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacquin, J., & Micheli, R. (2012). Entre texte et interaction: propositions méthodologiques pour une approche discursive de l’argumentation en sciences du langage. SHS Web of Conferences Volume 1, 2012; 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française , 599–611.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1980). L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lahire, B. (1996). Risquer l’interprétation. Pertinences interprétatives et surinterprétations en sciences sociales. Enquête, 3. URL: [URL]; Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, M. (2012). The Paradox of Charity. Informal Logic, 32–4, 403–439. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lumer, C. (2003). Interpreting Arguments. In F. H. van Eemeren, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 215–719). Amsterdam: SIC SAT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Interpretative Disputes, Explicatures, and Argumentative Reasoning. Argumentation, 30, 399–422. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Micheli, R. (2012). Arguing Without Trying to Persuade? Elements for a Non-Persuasive Definition of Argumentation. Argumentation, 26, 115–126. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, J., & de Spengler, N. (1982). La concession ou la réfutation interdite. Cahiers de Linguistique Française, 4, 7–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. ([1958]/1969). The New rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame (Indiana): University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, C. (1998). Les raisons des émotions. In M. Bondi (Ed.), Forms of argumentative discourse / Per un’analisi linguistica dell’argomentare (pp. 3–50). Bologne: CLUEB.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Les instruments de structuration des séquences argumentatives. Verbum, 32-1, 31–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Dictionary of Argumentation. An Introduction to Argumentation Studies [Studies in Logic,74]. College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of human behavior. The Hague: Mouton.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schellens, P. J., Šorm, E., Timmers, R., & Hoeken, H. (2017). Laypeople’s Evaluation of Arguments: Are Criteria for Argument Quality Scheme-Specific?. Argumentation, 31, 681–703. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to Popular Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania Sate Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willard, Ch. A. (1987). Valuing Dissensus. In F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & Ch. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation: Across the lines of discipline. Proceeding of the Conference on Argumentation 1986 (pp. 145–157). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications, PDA 3.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Jackson, Sally
2025. Studying Controversies: A Path for Expansion of Argumentation Theory. Argumentation 39:4 ► pp. 509 ff. DOI logo
van Eemeren, Frans H. & Bart Garssen
2019. A collection of studies of argumentation in practice. In Argumentation in Actual Practice [Argumentation in Context, 17], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 march 2026. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue