Cover not available

Review article published In: Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement
Edited by Jennifer Schumann and Steve Oswald
[Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 12:1] 2024
► pp. 1–16

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
Introduction

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

ORCiD logo with link | University of Fribourg, Switzerland
ORCiD logo with link | University of Fribourg, Switzerland
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Fribourg.

Published online: 7 June 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00094.sch
Abstract
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.
Article outline
  • 1.Disagreement, argumentation, and pragmatics
  • 2.Pragma-linguistic aspects of disagreement in argumentative frameworks
    • 2.1Disagreement in the pragma-dialectical approach to argumentation
    • 2.2Studying meaning-making resources for the study of disagreement in argumentation
    • 2.3Pragmatic embedding and pragmatic scope of disagreement
  • 3.Contributions to this special issue
  • Notes
  • References
References (53)
References
Aikin, Scott F., and John Casey. 2022a. Straw Man Arguments: A Study in Fallacy Theory. London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022b. “Argumentation and the Problem of Agreement.” Synthese 200 (2): 134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikin, Scott F., and Robert B. Talisse. 2018. Why we Argue (and How we Should): A Guide to Political Disagreement in the Age of Unreason. Second edition. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bermejo Luque, Lilian, and Andrei Moldovan, eds. 2021. “Speech Acts and Argumentation.” Special issue. Informal Logic 41 (3). [URL]
Boogaart, Ronny, Henrike Jansen, and Maarten van Leeuwen, eds. 2021. The Language of Argumentation. Argumentation Library 36. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Castro Amenábar, Diego. 2022. “Argumentation and Disagreement: A Pluralistic Approach.” University of Groningen. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chalmers, David J. 2011. “Verbal Disputes.” The Philosophical Review 120 (4): 515–566. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion. Dordrecht: Foris publications. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, Scott Jacobs, and Sally A. Jackson. 1993. Reconstructing Argumentative Discourse. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Peter Houtlosser. 2006. “Strategic Maneuvering: A Synthetic Recapitulation.” Argumentation 20 (4): 381–392. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Vol. 121. Argumentation Library. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jean. 2001. “The Noncooperative Pragmatics of Arguing.” In Pragmatics in 2000: Selected Papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, Vol. 21, edited by E. T. Németh, 263–277. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Jean, and Beth Innocenti. 2019. “The Pragmatic Force of Making an Argument.” Topoi 38 (4): 669–680. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 31:41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardaker, Claire. 2010. “Trolling in Asynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication: From User Discussions to Academic Definitions.” Journal of Politeness Research 6 (2): 215–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, Thierry, and Steve Oswald, eds. 2014. Rhétorique 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herman, Thierry, Jérôme Jacquin, and Steve Oswald, eds. 2018. Les mots de l’argumentation. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022. “‘You Want Me to Be Wrong’: Expert Ethos, (de-)Legitimation, and Ethotic Straw Men as Discursive Resources for Conspiracy Theories.”. In Conspiracy Theory Discourses, edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi, and Angela Zottola, 981:99–120???. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinton, Martin. 2021. Evaluating the Language of Argument. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Enhancement 06 (05). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Innocenti, Beth. 2022. “Demanding a Halt to Metadiscussions.” Argumentation 36 (3): 345–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1992. “Virtual Standpoints and the Pragmatics of Conversational Argument.” In Argumentation Illuminated, edited by Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, J. Anthony Blair, and Charles Willard, 11:260–269. Amsterdam: Sicsat.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 1987. “The Management of Disagreement in Conversation.” In Across the Lines of Disciplines, edited by Frans Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Anthony Blair, 229–240. Amsterdam: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics.” Argumentation 14 (3): 261–286. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott, and Sally Jackson. 1982. “Conversational Argument: A Discourse Analytic Approach.” In Advances in Argumentation Theory and Research, edited by JR Cox and Charles Willard, 205–237. Carbondale & Edwardsville: Southern Illinois Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. “Relevance and Digressions in Argumentative Discussion: A Pragmatic Approach.” Argumentation 6 (2): 161–176. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.” Languages 7 (2): 153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kauffeld, Fred. 1998. “Presumptions and the Distribution of Argumentative Burdens in Acts of Proposing and Accusing.” Argumentation 12 (2): 245–266. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2014. The Pragmatics of Politeness. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, and Pedro Abreu. 2022. “Arguing About ‘COVID’: Metalinguistic Arguments on What Counts as a ‘COVID-19 Death.’” In The Pandemic of Argumentation, edited by Steve Oswald, Marcin Lewiński, Sara Greco, and Serena Villata, 431: 17–41. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewiński, Marcin, Bianca Cepollaro, Steve Oswald, and Maciej Witek, eds. 2023. “Norms of Public Argument: A Speech Act Perspective.” Special Issue. Topoi 42 (2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Interaction 4 (1): 93–114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure. 2008. “Explicitness, Implicitness and Commitment Attribution: A Cognitive Pragmatic Approach.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 197–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mundwiler, Vera, and Judith Kreuz. 2018. “Collaborative Decision-Making in Argumentative Group Discussions among Primary School Children.” In Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, 263–285. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oliveira Fernandes, Daniel de, and Steve Oswald. 2022. “On the Rhetorical Effectiveness of Implicit Meaning – A Pragmatic Approach.” Languages 8 (1): 6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve. 2016. “Commitment Attribution and the Reconstruction of Arguments.” In The Psychology of Argument: Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, edited by Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 591:17–32. Studies in Logic and Argumentation. London: College Publications.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. ed. 2022. “Pragmatics and Argumentation.” Special issue. Languages 71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023a. ‘Pragmatics for Argumentation’. Journal of Pragmatics 2031 (January): 144–156. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2023b. “The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface.” Languages 8 (3): 210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin, eds. 2018. Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Argumentation Library. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, and Marcin Lewiński. 2014. “Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy.” In Rhétorique et Cognition: Perspectives Théoriques et Stratégies Persuasives – Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, edited by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Sciences Pour La Communication 112. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plunkett, David. 2015. “Which Concepts Should we Use?: Metalinguistic Negotiations and the Methodology of Philosophy.” Inquiry 58 (7–8): 828–874. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pollaroli, Chiara, Sara Greco, Steve Oswald, Johanna Miecznikowski, and Andrea Rocci, eds. 2019. Rhetoric and Language: Emotions and Style in Argumentative Discourse (Special Issue of Informal Logic 39:4).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Context 9 (1): 69–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schumann, Jennifer. 2022a. “The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies. An Experimental Approach.” Bern: University of Bern.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2022b. “Do People Perceive the Disagreement in Straw Man Fallacies? An Experimental Investigation.” Languages 7 (2): 111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.” In Argumentation in Practice, edited by Frans van Eemeren and Peter Houtlosser, 21: 181–195. Controversies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zenker, Frank, Jan Albert Van Laar, B. Cepollaro, A. Gâţă, M. Hinton, C. G. King, B. Larson, et al. 2023. “Norms of Public Argumentation and the Ideals of Correctness and Participation.” Argumentation, March. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Yu, Buqing & Dorien Van De Mieroop
2025. Disagreement in Chinese blue-collar workplace small talk: The role of assessments relating to regional knowledge. Journal of Pragmatics 241 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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