On the challenge of translating the terminology in contemporary argumentation theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31812/apm27.f65rrj21Keywords:
Theory of argumentation, reason, argumentation, dialogue, arguing, argumentAbstract
Clarifying terminology is a central task in contemporary argumentation theory. The English term ‘argument’ is particularly controversial and widely used in research publications. Its meaning is highly context-dependent, making accurate translation into Ukrainian difficult.
To address this issue, a systematic analysis of various approaches to the term 'argument' within argumentation theory is provided.
The research is organized around the ‘process–product’ dichotomy and examines the term's relationship to related concepts, including ‘dialogue’, ‘argumentation’, ‘arguing’, and ‘reasoning’.
The paper further emphasizes that the term ‘argument’ is fundamental not only to argumentation theory but also to related disciplines such as logic and critical thinking.
Finally, context-dependent recommendations are presented for translating the examined English terms into Ukrainian.
Downloads
References
1. Blair J.A. 1998. The limits of the dialogue model of argument. Argumentation. 1998. Vol. 12 (3). P. 325–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007768503175
2. Blair J.A., Johnson R.H. Argumentation as Dialectical, Argumentation. 1987. Vol. 1, P. 41–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00127118
3. Cambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Argument. Cambridge University Press. (Online ed.). Retrieved December 1, 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/argument
4. Dutilh Novaes C. 2021. Argument and argumentation. E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition). Available online:
https:// plato. stanf ord. edu/ archi ves/ fall2 021/ entres/ argument/.
5. Eemeren F.H. van, Grootendorst R.Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht-Cinnaminson: Foris & Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089
6. Eemeren, F.H. van, Grootendorst R. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389
7. Goddu G.C. Is ‘argument’ subject to the product/process ambiguity? Informal Logic. 2011. Vol. 31 (2). P. 75–88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i2.3098
8. Goodman J. On defining ‘argument.’ Argumentation. 2018. Vol. 32 (4). P. 589–602. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-018-9457-y
9. Goodwin J. Argument has no function. Informal Logic. Vol. 2007. 27 (1). P. 69–90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v27i1.465
10. Groarke L. Going multimodal: What is a mode of arguing and why does it matter? Argumentation. 2015. Vol. 29 (2). P. 133–155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9336-0
11. Haber J. Critical thinking. MIT Press, 2020. (український переклад Хейбер Дж. Критичне мислення. Київ: ArtHuss, 2023).
12. Hitchcock D. Informal logic and the concept of argument. Philosophy of Logic, ed. D. Jaquette. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007. P. 101–129. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-044451541-4/50007-5
13. Jackson, S. 2019. Reason-giving and the natural normativity of argumentation. Topoi. 2019. 38 (4). P. 631–643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-018-9553-5
14. Johnson R. Manifest rationality. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.
15. Lewiński M. One concept of argument. Argumentation. 2025. Vol. 39. P. 393-418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-025-09654-3
16. O’Keefe D.J. Two concepts of argument. Journal of the American Forensic Association. 1977. Vol. 13 (3). P. 121–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.1977.11951098
17. Oxford English Dictionary. (n.d.). Argument. Oxford University Press. (Online ed.). Retrieved December 1, 2025, from https://www.oed.com/
18. Tindale, C.W. The philosophy of argument and audience reception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316181645
19. Walton D.N. Argument Structure, A Pragmatic Theory. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487574475
20. Walton D.N. Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
21. Walton D.N. Plausible Argument in Everyday Conversation. Albany: State University of New York Press, NY, 1992.
22. Walton D.N. Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London:The University of Alabama Press, , 1995.
23. Walton D.N. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? The Journal of Philosophy. 1990. 87 (8). Р. 399–419. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2026735
24. Walton D.N., Krabbe E.C.W. Commitment in Dialogue: Basic Concepts of Interpersonal Reasoning. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ірина Хоменко
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
