{"id":4640,"date":"2021-10-16T10:27:39","date_gmt":"2021-10-16T08:27:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4640"},"modified":"2025-03-28T09:47:14","modified_gmt":"2025-03-28T08:47:14","slug":"to-argue-argument-argumentation-argumentative-the-words-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/to-argue-argument-argumentation-argumentative-the-words-e\/","title":{"rendered":"(To) Argue, Argument, Argumentation, Argumentative: The Words"},"content":{"rendered":"

To ARGUE, Argument, Argumentation, Argumentative:<\/em> <\/span>
\nTHE WORDS<\/span><\/h1>\n

1. The Words<\/span><\/h1>\n

1.1<\/span> To argue<\/span> \u00ad<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

The verb to argue<\/em> has two different meanings which will be referred to, respectively, as to argue1<\/sub><\/em> and to argue2<\/sub><\/em>:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0To argue1<\/sub><\/em>: \u201cto give reasons for or against; to debate\u201d
\n\u2014\u00a0To argue2<\/sub><\/em>: \u00ab\u00a0to engage in a quarrel; to dispute: We must stop arguing and engage in constructive dialogue<\/em> (tfd, Argue<\/em>).<\/p>\n

The morphological, syntactic, and semantic differences between these meanings are crucial and clear.<\/p>\n

Morphology<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The word argumentation<\/em> is derived from to argue1 <\/sub><\/em>via argument<\/em>1<\/sub><\/em>; it refers only to speech in which a conclusion is supported by good reasons.<\/p>\n

Syntax<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u2014\u00a0To argue_1<\/em> is followed by a that<\/em> clause: \u201cA<\/em><\/strong> argues that <\/em>P<\/strong>\u201d; P<\/strong> is the claim.
\n<\/em>\u2014\u00a0To argue_2<\/em> is followed by a double indirect complement: \u201cA argues with B<\/strong> about Q<\/strong><\/em>\u201d. Q<\/strong> is neither A<\/strong>‘s nor B<\/strong>‘s claim, but refers to the subject of the dispute.<\/p>\n

Semantics<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u2014\u00a0To argue_1<\/sub><\/em> means \u201cto give reasons\u201d\u00a0(MW, Argue<\/em>) and refers to a semiotic activity (verbal and co-verbal).<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0To argue_2<\/sub><\/em> means \u201cto have a disagreement a quarrel, a dispute\u201d (ibid<\/em>.), and refers to the wide range of interactions from a lively discussion to outright pugilism, as shown in the following passage, in which the detective Ned Beaumont questions an informant, Sloss:<\/p>\n

Ned Beaumont nodded. \u2018Just what did you see?<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\n\u2018We saw Paul and the kid standing there under the trees, arguing<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\n\u2018You could see that as you rode past?<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\nSloss nodded vigorously again.<\/span>
\n\u2018It was a dark spot<\/em>\u2019, Ned Beaumont reminded him. \u2018I don’t see how you could’ve made out their faces riding past like that, unless you slowed up or stopped<\/em>.\u2019<\/span>
\n\u2018No, we didn’t, but I’d know Paul anywhere<\/em>,\u2019 Sloss insisted.<\/span>
\n\u2018Maybe, but how’d you know it was the kid with him?<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\n\u2018It was. Sure it was. We could see enough of him to know that<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\n\u2018And you could see they were arguing? What do you mean by that? Fighting?’<\/em><\/span>
\n\u2018No, but standing like they were having an argument. You know how you can tell when people are arguing sometimes by the way they stand<\/em>\u2019<\/span>
\nNed Beaumont smiled mirthlessly. \u2018Yes, if one of them\u2019s standing on the other’s face<\/em>.\u2019 His smile vanished.<\/span>
\nDashiell Hammett, The Glass Key,<\/em> [1931][1]<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

1.2 Argument \u00ad<\/em><\/span><\/h2>\n

The noun an argument<\/em> inherits the two meanings of to argue<\/em>; an argument1<\/sub><\/em> is a \u201cgood reason\u201d, an argument2<\/sub><\/em> is a \u201cdispute\u201d, possibly including argument1<\/sub><\/em>.
\nGrimshaw\u2019s book, Conflict Talk. Sociolinguistic Investigations of Arguments in Conversation<\/em> (1990), deals exclusively deals with arguments2<\/sub><\/em> \u201cdisputes\u201d, and not at all with arguments1,<\/sub><\/em> \u201cgood reasons\u201d.<\/p>\n

Argument can have two other meanings
\nArgument3<\/sub><\/em>, as \u201cthe abstract, the theme, the subject matter\u201d (of a literary work, etc.).
\nArgument4<\/sub>, in mathematics, the variable associated to a function<\/p>\n

\u201cArgument is War\u201d \u2014\u00a0<\/strong>Lakoff and Johnson have discussed the famous equivalence \u201cargument is war\u201d:<\/p>\n

Let us start with the concept argument and the conceptual metaphor argument is war<\/em>. This metaphor is reflected in our everyday language by a wide variety of expressions:<\/span><\/p>\n

Your claims are indefensible.
\n<\/em>He attacked <\/em>every weak point in my argument.<\/span>
\nHis criticisms were right on target.
\nI demolished his argument. [\u2026]\n<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cWe can actually win<\/em> or lose<\/em> arguments\u201d (1980, p. 4)<\/span><\/p>\n

Lakoff and Johnson call this \u201cthe<\/em> concept argument\u201d. If the preceding conclusion is correct, then, there are not one but two, or even four, concepts of argument. To argue2<\/sub><\/em> and argument2<\/sub><\/em> may be associated with some kind of war; but what about argument<\/em>1 <\/sub><\/em>and to argue1<\/sub><\/em>?<\/p>\n

If interlinguistic comparisons can tell anything about words used as concepts, note that, in French, the first set of metaphors is easily translated word for word; but the expression \u201cwe can actually win or lose arguments<\/em>\u201d is not.<\/p>\n

The words to argue<\/em>, argument<\/em>, and argumentation<\/em> have clearly recognizable counterparts in French or Spanish, or in the Romance languages in general:<\/p>\n

French argumenter, argument, argumentation
\n<\/em>Spanish argumentar, argumento, argumentaci\u00f3n<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

This graphic illustration of the proximity of these words certainly favors the internationalization of the concept. However, there are deep differences between their respective meanings, which can be roughly represented as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
English<\/em><\/td>\ndispute<\/em><\/td>\ngood reason<\/em><\/td>\ntopic<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
French<\/em><\/td>\ngood reason<\/em><\/td>\ntopic<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Spanish<\/em><\/td>\ngood reason<\/em><\/td>\ntopic<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The French word argument<\/em>\u00a0and the Spanish word argumento<\/em> never refer to a dispute. The field of argumentation studies develops from the common meaning of argument<\/em>1<\/sub><\/em>, \u201cgood reason\u201d.<\/p>\n

This suggests that the meaning of to argue2<\/sub><\/em>, argument2<\/sub><\/em> in a language is independent <\/em>of the concept referred to by the family to argue1<\/sub><\/em>, argument1<\/sub>, argumentation<\/em>.<\/p>\n

1.3 Argumentative<\/em><\/span><\/h3>\n

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the adjective argumentative<\/em> shares the two meanings of its morphological base, argument<\/em>: \u00ab\u00a0controversial\u00a0\u00bb and \u00ab\u00a0disputatious\u00a0\u00bb (MW, Argumentative<\/em>). The Merriam-Webster<\/em> Learner’s Dictionary<\/em>, however, is more categorical (MWLD, Argumentative<\/em>):<\/p>\n

Argumentative<\/em>: tending to argue; having or showing a tendency to disagree or argue with other people in an angry way: quarrelsome.<\/p>\n

An argumentative<\/em> person<\/span>
\nHe became more argumentative<\/em> during the debate.<\/span>
\nAn argumentative<\/em> essay.<\/span><\/p>\n

By default, in this dictionary, argumentative<\/em> will be attached to the family \u201cargumentation<\/em>\u201d (argumentative1<\/sub><\/em>), that is, a semantically derived of argument1<\/sub><\/em> \u201cgood reason\u201d, unless contextually clear or otherwise specified. An argumentative essay<\/em> is taken to be \u201can essay that develops an argumentation\u201d; when referring to \u201ca polemical essay\u201d (argumentative2<\/sub><\/em>), its quarrelsome character will be explicitly mentioned.<\/p>\n

2. Divergent orientations: the words argumenter, argument<\/em>\u00a0 vs arguer, argutie <\/em> in French
\n<\/span><\/h1>\n

In French, from a morphological point of view, the verb arguer <\/em>is the basic verb from which all the argu- <\/em>words are derived:<\/p>\n

arguer \u00a0 <\/em>\u2192<\/em> un argument \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>\u2192 <\/em>argumenter \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em>\u2192 <\/em>une argumentation, etc
\n<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0an argument\u00a0\u00bb \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00ab\u00a0to argue\u00a0\u00bb \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00ab\u00a0an argumentation\u00a0\u00bb, etc.<\/span><\/p>\n

But arguerF<\/sub> <\/em>must be distinguished; to argue<\/em> does not match argumenterF<\/sub><\/em>, nor does arguerF<\/sub><\/em>. There is a semantic discontinuity between arguerF<\/sub><\/em> and argumenterF<\/sub><\/em>. When S1<\/strong> says:<\/p>\n

S:\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014 Pierre argumente en faveur de P<\/em>, \u201cPeter argues that P\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

S<\/strong> considers that Peter does<\/em> give argumentsF<\/sub>. If he or she says:<\/p>\n

S:\u00a0\u00a0 \u2014\u00a0Pierre argue que\u2026\u00a0<\/em>\u201cPeter arguesF <\/sub><\/em>that so-and-so\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

S<\/strong> is simply quoting the argumentative discourse of Peter without taking a position on the validity of the arguments offered by Peter, and even suggesting that they might be fallacious<\/em>. In a newspaper the construction:<\/p>\n

The extreme right arguesF <\/sub><\/em>that\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n

introduces an argumentationF<\/sub> presented as weak or invalid.
\nThat is, the verbs arguerF<\/sub><\/em> and argumenterF<\/sub><\/em> have opposite orientations<\/em>. The former values discourse content as arguments<\/em>, while the latter suggests that it only presents pseudo-arguments.<\/p>\n

Quibble<\/em> can be translated in French as argutieF<\/sub><\/em>, a word derived from arguerF<\/sub><\/em>:<\/p>\n

These people are the manipulated agents of subversion, carrying out instructions and rehashing quibbles<\/em> [\u00ab\u00a0r\u00e9p\u00e9tant des arguties\u00a0\u00bb].<\/span><\/p>\n

ArguerF<\/sub> <\/em>and argutieF<\/sub><\/em> are used only occasionally. ArguerF<\/sub> <\/em>can be replaced by argumentF<\/sub><\/em> between quotes. Thus, a pro-wind farm group quotes the arguments of its opponents, the anti-wind farm group, as follows:<\/p>\n

Let’s look at some of the anti-wind farms \u2018arguments\u2019<\/span>
\n(Complete example, see Convergent argumentation<\/a>)<\/span><\/p>\n

The concept<\/em> of argument, and argumentation studies, benefit from the strong positive orientation that the words<\/em> argument<\/em> and argumentation<\/em> have in ordinary language.
\nThe same is true for the word and the concept of dialogue<\/em>, see Interaction, Dialogue, Polyphony<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/a> Quoted after Dashiell Hammett, The Four Great Novels<\/em>. Picador, 1982. P. 725-726.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To ARGUE, Argument, Argumentation, Argumentative: THE WORDS 1. The Words 1.1 To argue \u00ad The verb to argue has two different meanings which will be referred to, respectively, as to argue1 and to argue2: \u2014\u00a0To argue1: \u201cto give reasons for or against; to debate\u201d \u2014\u00a0To argue2: \u00ab\u00a0to engage in a quarrel; to dispute: We must […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4640","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4640","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4640"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4640\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13835,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4640\/revisions\/13835"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4640"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4640"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4640"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}