Most studies dealing with analogy or comparison emphasize the pervasive character of the discursive processes they refer to, and regret the lack of any satisfactory theoretical account for them. The present paper tries to take a more positive stance: it starts from the many insightful essays on comparative arguments and proposes to make them enter into dialogue with actual argumentative practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Amossy, R. (2006). L’argumentation Dans le Discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
Authier-Revuz, J. (1982). Hétérogénéité montrée et hétérogénéité constitutive: éléments pour une approche de l’autre dans le discours. DRLAV, 26, 91–151.
Blanché, R. (1973). Le Raisonnement. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Borel, M.-J. (1977). Objet, notion, concept et analogie. Discours et Analogies (LADII), n°30, Travaux du Centre de Recherches Sémiologiques, Neuchâtel, pp. 47–147.
Brown, W. R. (1989). Two traditions of analogy. Informal Logic, 11, 161–172.
Brown, W. R. (1995). The domain constraint on analogy and analogical arguments. InformalLogic, 17(1), 89–100.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declercq, G. (1992). L’art D’argumenter. Structures Rhétoriques et Littéraires. Paris: Editions Universitaires.
Doury, M. (2004). La classification des arguments dans les discours ordinaires. Langage, 154, 59–73.
Doury, M. (2006). Evaluating analogy: Toward a descriptive approach to argumentative Norms. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 35–49). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ducrot, O. (1980). Analyse de textes et linguistique de l’énonciation. In O. Ducrot (Ed.), Les Mots du Discours (pp. 7–56). Paris: Minuit.
Eggs, E. (1994). Grammaire du Discours Argumentatif. Paris: Kimé.
Garssen, B. (1994). Recognizing argumentation schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren & R. Grootendorst (Eds.), Studies in Pragma-Dialectics (pp. 105–111). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Garssen B. (2002). Understanding argument schemes. In F. H. van Eemeren (Ed.), Advances inPragma-Dialectics (pp. 93–104). Amsterdam: SicSat/Vale Press.
Govier, T. (1985). Logical Analogies. Informal Logic, 7(1), 27–33.
Govier, T. (1989). Analogies and missing premises. Informal Logic, 11(3), 141–152.
Govier, T. (2001). A Practical Study of Argument (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.
Guarini, M. (2004). A defence of non-deductive reconstruction of analogical arguments. Informal Logic, 24(2), 153–168.
Hamblin, C. L. (1970/2004). Fallacies. Newport News, VA: Vale Press.
Johnson, F. (1989). Analogical arguings and explainings. Informal Logic, 11(3), 153–160.
Juthe, A. (2005). Argument by analogy. Argumentation, 19, 1–27.
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2005). Le Discours en Interaction. Paris: Armand Colin.
Kienpointner, M. (1992). How to classify arguments. In F. H. van Emeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, & C. A. Willard (Eds.), Argumentation Illuminated (pp. 178–188). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1988). Traité de L’argumentation. La Nouvelle Rhétorique. Bruxelles: éditions de l’université de Bruxelles.
Plantin, C. (1996). L’argumentation. Paris: Seuil (Mémo).
Plantin, C. (2005). L’argumentation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (Que Sais-je?).
Schellens, J. (1985). Redelijke Argumenten. Een Onderzoek naar Normen voor Kritische Lezers (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht, 1985).
Snoeck Henkemans, A .F. (2003). Indicators of analogy argumentation. In F. H. van Emeren, J. A. Blair, C. Willard, & A. F. Snoeck Henkemans (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation (pp. 969–973). Amsterdam: SicSat.
Traverso, V. (1996). La Conversation Familiëre. Lyon: PUL.
van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2002), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies. A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2002). Argumentation nalysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Waller, B. N. (2001). Classifying and analyzing analogies. Informal Logic, 21(3), 199–218.
Whaley, B. B. (1998). Evaluation of rebuttal analogy users: Ethical and competence considerations. Argumentation, 12, 351–365.
Woods, J., & Hudak, B. (1989). By parity of reasoning. Informal Logic, 11(3), 125–139.
Woods, J., & Hudak, B. (1992). Verdi is the Puccini of music. Synthese, 92, 189–220.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Doury, M. (2009). Argument Schemes Typologies in Practice: The Case of Comparative Arguments. In: van Eemeren, F.H., Garssen, B. (eds) Pondering on Problems of Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 14. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9165-0_11
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9164-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9165-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)