Definition of the word argument

Last Updated:
12 Apr 2023
— Updated example sentences

This article is about the subject as it is studied in logic and philosophy. For other uses, see Argument (disambiguation).

An argument is a statement or group of statements called premises intended to determine the degree of truth or acceptability of another statement called a conclusion.^[1][2] Arguments can be studied from three main perspectives: the logical, the dialectical and the rhetorical perspective.^[3]

In logic, an argument is usually expressed not in natural language but in a symbolic formal language, and it can be defined as any group of propositions of which one is claimed to follow from the others through deductively valid inferences that preserve truth from the premises to the conclusion. This logical perspective on argument is relevant for scientific fields such as mathematics and computer science. Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments.^[4] Deductive arguments can be valid, and the valid ones can be sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premises is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premises necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.^[5] The standards for evaluating non-deductive arguments may rest on different or additional criteria than truth—for example, the persuasiveness of so-called «indispensability claims» in transcendental arguments,^[6] the quality of hypotheses in retroduction, or even the disclosure of new possibilities for thinking and acting.^[7]

In dialectics, and also in a more colloquial sense, an argument can be conceived as a social and verbal means of trying to resolve, or at least contend with, a conflict or difference of opinion that has arisen or exists between two or more parties.^[8] For the rhetorical perspective, the argument is constitutively linked with the context, in particular with the time and place in which the argument is located. From this perspective, the argument is evaluated not just by two parties (as in a dialectical approach) but also by an audience.^[9] In both dialectic and rhetoric, arguments are used not through a formal but through natural language. Since classical antiquity, philosophers and rhetoricians have developed lists of argument types in which premises and conclusions are connected in informal and defeasible ways.^[10]

Etymology[edit]

The Latin root arguere (to make bright, enlighten, make known, prove, etc.) is from Proto-Indo-European argu-yo-, suffixed form of arg- (to shine; white).^[11]

Formal and informal[edit]

Informal arguments as studied in informal logic, are presented in ordinary language and are intended for everyday discourse. Formal arguments are studied in formal logic (historically called symbolic logic, more commonly referred to as mathematical logic today) and are expressed in a formal language. Informal logic emphasizes the study of argumentation; formal logic emphasizes implication and inference. Informal arguments are sometimes implicit. The rational structure—the relationship of claims, premises, warrants, relations of implication, and conclusion—is not always spelled out and immediately visible and must be made explicit by analysis.

Standard logical account of argument types[edit]

There are several kinds of arguments in logic, the best-known of which are «deductive» and «inductive.» An argument has one or more premises but only one conclusion. Each premise and the conclusion are truth bearers or «truth-candidates», each capable of being either true or false (but not both). These truth values bear on the terminology used with arguments.

Deductive arguments[edit]

A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion, because negation of the conclusion is contradictory to the truth of the premises. Based on the premises, the conclusion follows necessarily (with certainty). Given premises that A=B and B=C, then the conclusion follows necessarily that A=C. Deductive arguments are sometimes referred to as «truth-preserving» arguments. For example, consider the argument that because bats can fly (premise=true), and all flying creatures are birds (premise=false), therefore bats are birds (conclusion=false). If we assume the premises are true, the conclusion follows necessarily, and it is a valid argument.

Validity[edit]

Deductive arguments may be either valid or invalid. If valid, it has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises; if its premises are true, the conclusion must be true. An argument is formally valid if and only if the denial of the conclusion is incompatible with accepting all the premises.

The validity of an argument depends not on the actual truth or falsity of its premises and conclusion, but on whether the argument has a valid logical form. The validity of an argument is not a guarantee of the truth of its conclusion. A valid argument may have false premises that render it inconclusive: the conclusion of a valid argument with one or more false premises may be true or false.

Logic seeks to discover the forms that make arguments valid. A form of argument is valid if and only if the conclusion is true under all interpretations of that argument in which the premises are true. Since the validity of an argument depends on its form, an argument can be shown invalid by showing that its form is invalid. This can be done by a counter example of the same form of argument with premises that are true under a given interpretation, but a conclusion that is false under that interpretation. In informal logic this is called a counter argument.

The form of an argument can be shown by the use of symbols. For each argument form, there is a corresponding statement form, called a corresponding conditional, and an argument form is valid if and only if its corresponding conditional is a logical truth. A statement form which is logically true is also said to be a valid statement form. A statement form is a logical truth if it is true under all interpretations. A statement form can be shown to be a logical truth by either (a) showing that it is a tautology or (b) by means of a proof procedure.

The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a necessary truth (true in all possible worlds) and so the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, or follows of logical necessity. The conclusion of a valid argument is not necessarily true, it depends on whether the premises are true. If the conclusion, itself, is a necessary truth, it is without regard to the premises.

Some examples:

• All Greeks are human and all humans are mortal; therefore, all Greeks are mortal. : Valid argument; if the premises are true the conclusion must be true.
• Some Greeks are logicians and some logicians are tiresome; therefore, some Greeks are tiresome. Invalid argument: the tiresome logicians might all be Romans (for example).
• Either we are all doomed or we are all saved; we are not all saved; therefore, we are all doomed. Valid argument; the premises entail the conclusion. (This does not mean the conclusion has to be true; it is only true if the premises are true, which they may not be!)
• Some men are hawkers. Some hawkers are rich. Therefore, some men are rich. Invalid argument. This can be easier seen by giving a counter-example with the same argument form:
  • Some people are herbivores. Some herbivores are zebras. Therefore, some people are zebras. Invalid argument, as it is possible that the premises be true and the conclusion false.

In the above second to last case (Some men are hawkers …), the counter-example follows the same logical form as the previous argument, (Premise 1: «Some X are Y.» Premise 2: «Some Y are Z.» Conclusion: «Some X are Z.») in order to demonstrate that whatever hawkers may be, they may or may not be rich, in consideration of the premises as such. (See also: Existential import).

The forms of argument that render deductions valid are well-established, however some invalid arguments can also be persuasive depending on their construction (inductive arguments, for example). (See also: Formal fallacy and Informal fallacy).

Soundness[edit]

A sound argument is a valid argument whose conclusion follows from its premise(s), and the premise(s) of which is/are true.

Inductive arguments[edit]

An inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the probability of the premises. For example, given that the military budget of the United States is the largest in the world (premise=true), then it is probable that it will remain so for the next 10 years (conclusion=true). Arguments that involve predictions are inductive since the future is uncertain. An inductive argument is said to be strong or weak. If the premises of an inductive argument are assumed true, is it probable the conclusion is also true? If yes, the argument is strong. If no, it is weak. A strong argument is said to be cogent if it has all true premises. Otherwise, the argument is uncogent. The military budget argument example is a strong, cogent argument.

Non-deductive logic is reasoning using arguments in which the premises support the conclusion but do not entail it. Forms of non-deductive logic include the statistical syllogism, which argues from generalizations true for the most part, and induction, a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances. An inductive argument is said to be cogent if and only if the truth of the argument’s premises would render the truth of the conclusion probable (i.e., the argument is strong), and the argument’s premises are, in fact, true. Cogency can be considered inductive logic’s analogue to deductive logic’s «soundness». Despite its name, mathematical induction is not a form of inductive reasoning. The lack of deductive validity is known as the problem of induction.

Defeasible arguments and argumentation schemes[edit]

In modern argumentation theories, arguments are regarded as defeasible passages from premises to a conclusion. Defeasibility means that when additional information (new evidence or contrary arguments) is provided, the premises may be no longer lead to the conclusion (non-monotonic reasoning). This type of reasoning is referred to as defeasible reasoning. For instance we consider the famous Tweety example:

Tweety is a bird.

Birds generally fly.

Therefore, Tweety (probably) flies.

This argument is reasonable and the premises support the conclusion unless additional information indicating that the case is an exception comes in. If Tweety is a penguin, the inference is no longer justified by the premise. Defeasible arguments are based on generalizations that hold only in the majority of cases, but are subject to exceptions and defaults.

In order to represent and assess defeasible reasoning, it is necessary to combine the logical rules (governing the acceptance of a conclusion based on the acceptance of its premises) with rules of material inference, governing how a premise can support a given conclusion (whether it is reasonable or not to draw a specific conclusion from a specific description of a state of affairs).

Argumentation schemes have been developed to describe and assess the acceptability or the fallaciousness of defeasible arguments. Argumentation schemes are stereotypical patterns of inference, combining semantic-ontological relations with types of reasoning and logical axioms and representing the abstract structure of the most common types of natural arguments.^[12] A typical example is the argument from expert opinion, shown below, which has two premises and a conclusion.^[13]

Argument from expert opinion

Major Premise:	Source E is an expert in subject domain S containing proposition A.
Minor Premise:	E asserts that proposition A is true (false).
Conclusion:	A is true (false).

Each scheme may be associated with a set of critical questions, namely criteria for assessing dialectically the reasonableness and acceptability of an argument. The matching critical questions are the standard ways of casting the argument into doubt.

By analogy[edit]

Argument by analogy may be thought of as argument from the particular to particular. An argument by analogy may use a particular truth in a premise to argue towards a similar particular truth in the conclusion. For example, if A. Plato was mortal, and B. Socrates was like Plato in other respects, then asserting that C. Socrates was mortal is an example of argument by analogy because the reasoning employed in it proceeds from a particular truth in a premise (Plato was mortal) to a similar particular truth in the conclusion, namely that Socrates was mortal.

Other kinds[edit]

Other kinds of arguments may have different or additional standards of validity or justification. For example, philosopher Charles Taylor said that so-called transcendental arguments are made up of a «chain of indispensability claims» that attempt to show why something is necessarily true based on its connection to our experience,^[14] while Nikolas Kompridis has suggested that there are two types of «fallible» arguments: one based on truth claims, and the other based on the time-responsive disclosure of possibility (world disclosure).^[15] Kompridis said that the French philosopher Michel Foucault was a prominent advocate of this latter form of philosophical argument.^[16]

World-disclosing[edit]

World-disclosing arguments are a group of philosophical arguments that according to Nikolas Kompridis employ a disclosive approach, to reveal features of a wider ontological or cultural-linguistic understanding—a «world», in a specifically ontological sense—in order to clarify or transform the background of meaning (tacit knowledge) and what Kompridis has called the «logical space» on which an argument implicitly depends.^[17]

Explanations[edit]

While arguments attempt to show that something was, is, will be, or should be the case, explanations try to show why or how something is or will be. If Fred and Joe address the issue of whether or not Fred’s cat has fleas, Joe may state: «Fred, your cat has fleas. Observe, the cat is scratching right now.» Joe has made an argument that the cat has fleas. However, if Joe asks Fred, «Why is your cat scratching itself?» the explanation, «… because it has fleas.» provides understanding.

Both the above argument and explanation require knowing the generalities that a) fleas often cause itching, and b) that one often scratches to relieve itching. The difference is in the intent: an argument attempts to settle whether or not some claim is true, and an explanation attempts to provide understanding of the event. Note, that by subsuming the specific event (of Fred’s cat scratching) as an instance of the general rule that «animals scratch themselves when they have fleas», Joe will no longer wonder why Fred’s cat is scratching itself. Arguments address problems of belief, explanations address problems of understanding. Also note that in the argument above, the statement, «Fred’s cat has fleas» is up for debate (i.e. is a claim), but in the explanation, the statement, «Fred’s cat has fleas» is assumed to be true (unquestioned at this time) and just needs explaining.^[18]

Arguments and explanations largely resemble each other in rhetorical use. This is the cause of much difficulty in thinking critically about claims. There are several reasons for this difficulty.

• People often are not themselves clear on whether they are arguing for or explaining something.
• The same types of words and phrases are used in presenting explanations and arguments.
• The terms ‘explain’ or ‘explanation,’ et cetera are frequently used in arguments.
• Explanations are often used within arguments and presented so as to serve as arguments.^[19]
• Likewise, «… arguments are essential to the process of justifying the validity of any explanation as there are often multiple explanations for any given phenomenon.»^[18]

Explanations and arguments are often studied in the field of information systems to help explain user acceptance of knowledge-based systems. Certain argument types may fit better with personality traits to enhance acceptance by individuals.^[20]

Fallacies and non-arguments[edit]

Fallacies are types of argument or expressions which are held to be of an invalid form or contain errors in reasoning.

One type of fallacy occurs when a word frequently used to indicate a conclusion is used as a transition (conjunctive adverb) between independent clauses. In English the words therefore, so, because and hence typically separate the premises from the conclusion of an argument. Thus: Socrates is a man, all men are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal is an argument because the assertion Socrates is mortal follows from the preceding statements. However, I was thirsty and therefore I drank is not an argument, despite its appearance. It is not being claimed that I drank is logically entailed by I was thirsty. The therefore in this sentence indicates for that reason not it follows that.

Elliptical or ethymematic arguments[edit]

Often an argument is invalid or weak because there is a missing premise—the supply of which would make it valid or strong. This is referred to as an elliptical or enthymematic argument (see also Enthymeme § Syllogism with an unstated premise). Speakers and writers will often leave out a necessary premise in their reasoning if it is widely accepted and the writer does not wish to state the blindingly obvious. Example: All metals expand when heated, therefore iron will expand when heated. The missing premise is: Iron is a metal. On the other hand, a seemingly valid argument may be found to lack a premise—a «hidden assumption»—which, if highlighted, can show a fault in reasoning. Example: A witness reasoned: Nobody came out the front door except the milkman; therefore the murderer must have left by the back door. The hidden assumptions are: (1) the milkman was not the murderer and (2) the murderer has left (3) by a door and (4) not by e.g. a window or through an ‘ole in ‘t roof and (5) there are no other doors than the front or back door.

Argument mining[edit]

The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with the aid of computer programs.^[21] Such argumentative structures include the premise, conclusions, the argument scheme and the relationship between the main and subsidiary argument, or the main and counter-argument within discourse.^[22][23]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Shaw, Warren Choate (1922). The Art of Debate. Allyn and Bacon. p. 74. argument by analogy.
• Robert Audi, Epistemology, Routledge, 1998. Particularly relevant is Chapter 6, which explores the relationship between knowledge, inference and argument.
• J. L. Austin How to Do Things With Words, Oxford University Press, 1976.
• H. P. Grice, Logic and Conversation in The Logic of Grammar, Dickenson, 1975.
• Vincent F. Hendricks, Thought 2 Talk: A Crash Course in Reflection and Expression, New York: Automatic Press / VIP, 2005, ISBN 87-991013-7-8
• R. A. DeMillo, R. J. Lipton and A. J. Perlis, Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 22, No. 5, 1979. A classic article on the social process of acceptance of proofs in mathematics.
• Yu. Manin, A Course in Mathematical Logic, Springer Verlag, 1977. A mathematical view of logic. This book is different from most books on mathematical logic in that it emphasizes the mathematics of logic, as opposed to the formal structure of logic.
• Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, 1970. This classic was originally published in French in 1958.
• Henri Poincaré, Science and Hypothesis, Dover Publications, 1952
• Frans van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst, Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions, Foris Publications, 1984.
• K. R. Popper Objective Knowledge; An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
• L. S. Stebbing, A Modern Introduction to Logic, Methuen and Co., 1948. An account of logic that covers the classic topics of logic and argument while carefully considering modern developments in logic.
• Douglas N. Walton, Informal Logic: A Handbook for Critical Argumentation, Cambridge, 1998.
• Walton, Douglas; Christopher Reed; Fabrizio Macagno, Argumentation Schemes, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• Carlos Chesñevar, Ana Maguitman and Ronald Loui, Logical Models of Argument, ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 32, num. 4, pp. 337–383, 2000.
• T. Edward Damer. Attacking Faulty Reasoning, 5th Edition, Wadsworth, 2005. ISBN 0-534-60516-8
• Charles Arthur Willard, A Theory of Argumentation. 1989.
• Charles Arthur Willard, Argumentation and the Social Grounds of Knowledge. 1982.

Further reading[edit]

• Salmon, Wesley C. Logic. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall (1963). Library of Congress Catalog Card no. 63–10528.
• Aristotle, Prior and Posterior Analytics. Ed. and trans. John Warrington. London: Dent (1964)
• Mates, Benson. Elementary Logic. New York: OUP (1972). Library of Congress Catalog Card no. 74–166004.
• Mendelson, Elliot. Introduction to Mathematical Logic. New York: Van Nostran Reinholds Company (1964).
• Frege, Gottlob. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press (1980).
• Martin, Brian. The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).

External links[edit]

• Argument at PhilPapers
• Argument at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project
• Dutilh Novaes, Catarina. «Argument and Argumentation». In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• McKeon, Matthew. «Argument». Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

English[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

• (Received Pronunciation) IPA^(key): /ˈɑːɡjʊmənt/
• (General American) IPA^(key): /ˈɑɹɡjʊmənt/, /-ɡju-/, /-ɡjə-/
• Hyphenation: ar‧gu‧ment

Etymology 1[edit]

From Middle English argument,^[1] from Anglo-Norman and Old French arguement, from Latin argūmentum (“argument (for a position); evidence, proof; point, theme; thesis, topic; plot (in theatre)”), from arguere + -mentum (suffix indicating the instrument, medium, or result of something).^[2] Arguere is the present active infinitive of arguō (“to argue, assert, declare; to make clear, prove, show; to accuse, charge with, reprove; to blame, censure; to denounce as false”), either ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₂erǵ- (“silver, white; glittering”), or from Hittite [script needed] (arkuwā(i)-, “to make a plea, state one’s case”). The English word is analysable as argue +‎ -ment. Doublet of argumentum.

Displaced native Old English racu and ġeflit.

Noun[edit]

argument (countable and uncountable, plural arguments)

1. (countable, also figuratively) A fact or statement used to support a proposition; a reason.

   Synonyms: see Thesaurus:argument

   • 1691, John Ray, “Psalm 104. 24. How Manifold are thy Works O Lord? In Wisdom hast thou made them all.”, in The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation. […], London: […] Samuel Smith, […], →OCLC, pages 11–12:

     There is no greater, at leaſt no more palpable and convincing Argument of the Exiſtence of a Deity than the admirable Art and Wiſdom that diſcovers itſelf in the make and conſtitution, the order and diſpoſition, the ends and uſes of all the parts and members of this ſtately fabrick of Heaven and Earth.

   • 1851 November 14, Herman Melville, “Stubb’s Supper”, in Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, 1st American edition, New York, N.Y.: Harper & Brothers; London: Richard Bentley, →OCLC, pages 446–447:

     Says Plowdon [i.e., Edmund Plowden], the whale so caught belongs to the King and Queen, “because of its superior excellence.” And by the soundest commentators this has ever been held a cogent argument in such matters.

   1. (logic, philosophy) A series of propositions organized so that the final proposition is a conclusion which is intended to follow logically from the preceding propositions, which function as premises.

      • 2001, Mark Sainsbury, “Validity”, in Logical Forms: An Introduction to Philosophical Logic, 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Blackwell Publishing, →ISBN, § 8, page 35:

        Consider the argument: / 15) I am hungry; therefore I am hungry. / Intuitively this should count as valid. But suppose we thought of the components of arguments as sentences, and suppose we imagine the context shifting between the utterance of the premise and the utterance of the conclusion. Suppose you are hungry and utter the premise, and I am not hungry and utter the conclusion. Then we would have a true premise and a false conclusion, so the argument would not be valid. Clearly we need to avoid such problems, and introducing the notion of a proposition, in the style of this section, is one way of doing so.

      • 2011 July 20, Edwin Mares, “Propositional Functions”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy‎^[1], fall 2011 edition, archived from the original on 7 August 2020:

        In ‘The Critic of Arguments’ (1892), [Charles Sanders] Peirce adopts a notion that is even closer to that of a propositional function. There he develops the concept of the ‘rhema’. He says the rhema is like a relative term, but it is not a term. It contains a copula, that is, when joined to the correct number of arguments it produces an assertion. For example, ‘__ is bought by __ from __ for __’ is a four-place rhema. Applying it to four objects a, b, c, and d produces the assertion that a is bought by b from c for d […].

2. (countable) A process of reasoning; argumentation.

   • 1678, John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World, to That which is to Come: […], London: […] Nath[aniel] Ponder […], →OCLC; reprinted in The Pilgrim’s Progress as Originally Published by John Bunyan: Being a Fac-simile Reproduction of the First Edition, London: Elliot Stock […], 1875, →OCLC, page 84:

     Indeed, I cannot commend my life; for I am conſcious to my ſelf of many failings: therein, I know alſo that a man by his converſation, may ſoon overthrow what by argument or perſwaſion he doth labour to faſten upon others for their good: […]

   • 1689 (indicated as 1690), [John Locke], “Of the Remedies of the foregoing Imperfections and Abuses”, in An Essay Concerning Humane Understanding. […], London: […] Eliz[abeth] Holt, for Thomas Basset, […], →OCLC, book III, § 6, page 252:

     For if the Idea be not agreed on, betwixt the Speaker and Hearer, for which the Words ſtand, the Argument is not about Things, but Names.

   • 1818, [Mary Shelley], chapter I, in Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus. […], volume II, London: […] [Macdonald and Son] for Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, & Jones, →OCLC, page 146:

     I shuddered when I thought of the possible consequences of my consent; but I felt that there was some justice in his argument.

   • 2016 October 2, Nick Cohen, “Liberal Guilt Won’t Fight Nationalism”, in The Guardian Weekly, volume 195, number 17 (30 September – 6 October 2016), London: Guardian News & Media, →ISSN, →OCLC, page 21, column 3:

     Meanwhile, the authoritarianism, which has turned left-liberalism into a movement for sneaks and prudes, was always going to play into the hands of the right. Free citizens have stopped listening to those who respond to the challenge of argument by screaming for the police to arrest the politically incorrect or for universities to ban speakers who depart from leftish orthodoxy.

3. (countable) An abstract or summary of the content of a literary work such as a book, a poem or a major section such as a chapter, included in the work before the content itself; (figuratively) the contents themselves.

   • c. 1605–1608, William Shakespeare, “The Life of Tymon of Athens”, in Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies […] (First Folio), London: […] Isaac Iaggard, and Ed[ward] Blount, published 1623, →OCLC, [Act II, scene ii], page 84, column 2:

     If I would broach the veſſels of my loue, / And try the argument of hearts, by borrowing, / Men, and mens fortunes, could I frankely vſe / As I can bid thee ſpeake.

4. (countable) A verbal dispute; a quarrel.

   Synonyms: see Thesaurus:dispute

   The neighbours got into an argument about the branches of the trees that extended over the fence.

   • c. 1595–1596 (date written), W. Shakespere [i.e., William Shakespeare], A Pleasant Conceited Comedie Called, Loues Labors Lost. […] (First Quarto), London: […] W[illiam] W[hite] for Cut[h]bert Burby, published 1598, →OCLC; republished as Shakspere’s Loves Labours Lost (Shakspere-Quarto Facsimiles; no. 5), London: W[illiam] Griggs, […], [1880], →OCLC, [Act III, scene i]:

     Ar[mado]. Come hither, come hither: How did this argument begin.
     Boy. By ſaying that a Coſtard was broken in a ſhin,
     Then cald you for the Lenuoy [i.e. l’envoy].
     Clow[ne; i.e., Costard]. True, and I for a Plantan, thus came your argument in,
     Then the boyes fat Lenuoy, the Gooſe that you bought, and he ended the market.

   • 1671, John Milton, “Samson Agonistes, […]”, in Paradise Regain’d. A Poem. In IV Books. To which is Added, Samson Agonistes, London: […] J. M[acock] for John Starkey […], →OCLC, lines 904–905, page 56:

     In argument with men a woman ever / Goes by the worſe, whatever be her cauſe.

5. (by extension, humorous or euphemistic) Any dispute, altercation, or collision.

   Steve got in a physical argument with his neighbor and came away with a black eye.

   While biking home, he got in an argument with the pavement.

   • 2022 January 26, John Crosse, “When the tide turned to a safer railway…”, in RAIL, number 949, page 52, photo caption:

     D5131 has received extensive cab damage, having been in an argument with Class 37 D6855 at Inverness in August 1971 — one of two accidents that occurred there on August 20.

7. (countable, linguistics) Any of the phrases that bears a syntactic connection to the verb of a clause.

   • 1988, Andrew Radford, “The Lexicon”, in Transformational Grammar: A First Course (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, published 1999, →ISBN, section 7.10 (Thematic Relations), pages 372–373:

     In numerous works over the past two decades, beginning with the pioneering work of Gruber (1965), Fillmore (1968a), and Jackendoff (1972), it has been argued that each Argument (i.e. Subject or Complement) of a Predicate bears a particular thematic role (alias theta-role, or θ-role to its Predicate), and that the set of thematic functions which Arguments can fulfil are drawn from a highly restricted, finite, universal set.

8. (countable, mathematics)
   1. The independent variable of a function.
   2. The phase of a complex number.
   3. (also astronomy) A quantity on which the calculation of another quantity depends.

      The altitude is the argument of the refraction.

9. (countable, programming)
   1. A value, or a reference to a value, passed to a function.

      Synonyms: actual argument, passed parameter

      Parameters are like labelled fillable blanks used to define a function whereas arguments are passed to a function when calling it, filling in those blanks.

   2. A parameter at a function call; an actual parameter, as opposed to a formal parameter.
10. (countable, obsolete)
    1. A matter in question; a business in hand.

       • 1595 December 9 (first known performance), [William Shakespeare], The Tragedie of King Richard the Second. […] (First Quarto), London: […] Valentine Simmes for Androw Wise, […], published 1597, →OCLC, [Act I, scene i]:

         As neere as I could ſift him on that argument,
         On ſome apparent danger ſeene in him,
         Aimde at your highnes, no inueterate malice.

       • 1599, William Shakespeare, “The Life of Henry the Fift”, in Mr. William Shakespeares Comedies, Histories, & Tragedies […] (First Folio), London: […] Isaac Iaggard, and Ed[ward] Blount, published 1623, →OCLC, [Act III, scene i], page 77, column 2:

         On, on, you Nobliſh Engliſh, / Whoſe blood is fet from Fathers of Warre-proofe: / Fathers, that like ſo many Alexanders, / Haue in theſe parts from Morne till Euen fought, / And ſheath’d their Swords, for lack of argument.

    2. The subject matter of an artistic representation, discourse, or writing; a theme or topic.

       • 1570, Margaret Ascham, “To the Honorable Sir William Cecill Knight, Principall Secretarie to the Quenes Most Excellent Maiestie”, in Roger Ascham; Margaret Ascham, editor, The Scholemaster: Or Plaine and Perfite Way of Teaching Children, to Vnderstand, Write, and Speake, the Latin Tong, […], London: […] John Daye, […], →OCLC:

         [I]n vttering the ſtuffe ye receiued of the one, in declaring the order ye tooke with the other, ye ſhall neuer lacke, neither matter, nor maner, what to write, nor how to write in this kinde of Argument.

       • 1667, John Milton, “Book VI”, in Paradise Lost. […], London: […] [Samuel Simmons], […], →OCLC; republished as Paradise Lost in Ten Books: […], London: Basil Montagu Pickering […], 1873, →OCLC, lines 81–86:

         [N]earer view / Briſtl’d with upright beams innumerable / Of rigid Spears, and Helmets throng’d, and Shields / Various, with boaſtful Argument portraid, / The banded Powers of Satan haſting on / With furious expedition; […]

       • 1844, Francis Jeffrey, “Sardanapalus, a Tragedy. The Two Foscari, a Tragedy. Cain, a Mystery. By Lord Byron. 8vo. pp. 440. Murray, London: 1822. [book review]”, in Contributions to the Edinburgh Review. […], volume II, 2nd edition, London: […] [Andrew Spottiswoode] for Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, […], →OCLC, part III (Poetry), page 357:

         The abstract, or argument of the piece, is shortly as follows.

11. (uncountable, archaic) Evidence, proof; (countable) an item of such evidence or proof.

    • 1598–1599 (first performance), William Shakespeare, Much Adoe about Nothing. […], quarto edition, London: […] V[alentine] S[immes] for Andrew Wise, and William Aspley, published 1600, →OCLC, [Act II, scene iii]:

      [F]or louing me, by my troth it is no addition to her wit, nor no great argument of her follie, for I will be horribly in loue with her, […]

Usage notes[edit]

see Thesaurus:false, Thesaurus:stupid, Thesaurus:deceptive

• (parameter at a function call): some authors regard the use of argument to mean “formal parameter” to be imprecise, preferring that argument be used to refer only to the value that is used to instantiate the parameter at runtime, while parameter refers only to the name in the function definition that will be instantiated.

Alternative forms[edit]

• arguement (obsolete)

Meronyms[edit]

• (logic): conclusion, premise, proposition

Derived terms[edit]

[edit]

Collocations[edit]

Translations[edit]

Etymology 2[edit]

The obsolete senses are derived from Middle English argumenten (“to argue, discuss; to consider, reflect”),^[3] from Old French argumenter (“to argue”), from Latin argūmentārī, the present active infinitive of argūmentor (“to adduce arguments or proof, prove, reason; to adduce (something) as argument or proof; to conclude”), from argūmentum (“argument (for a position); evidence, proof; point, theme; thesis, topic; plot (in theatre)”) (see further at etymology 1)^[4] + -or (the first-person singular present passive indicative of -ō (suffix forming regular first-conjugation verbs)).

The current sense is derived from the noun.

Verb[edit]

argument (third-person singular simple present arguments, present participle argumenting, simple past and past participle argumented)

1. (intransitive, obsolete, now nonstandard, non-native speakers’ English) To put forward as an argument; to argue.

   • 1607, Edward Topsell, “Of the Elephant”, in The Historie of Fovre-footed Beastes. […], London: […] William Iaggard, →OCLC, page 194:

     [I]t is moſt certaine, that after Herodotus and other auncient writers, it is ſafer to call theſe [elephants’ tusks] teeth, then hornes; and I will breefly ſet downe the reaſons of Philoſtratus, that will haue them to be teeth, and afterward of Grapaldus [i.e., Francesco Mario Grapaldi], Aelianus, and Pauſanias, that would make them horns, and ſo leaue the reader to conſider whether opinion he thinketh moſt agreeable to truth. […] Thus they argument for the horns of Elephants.

   • 1637, [George Gillespie], “That the Ceremonies are Unlawfull, because They are Monuments of By-past Idolatry, […]”, in A Dispvte against the English-Popish Ceremonies Obtrvded vpon the Chvrch of Scotland. […], [Leiden: […] W. Christiaens], →OCLC, 3rd part (Against the Lavvfulnesse of the Ceremonies), section 15, page 29:

     Both kneeling, and all the reſt of the Popiſh Ceremonies, may well be compared to the Brazen Serpent. […] I. Rainoldes [i.e., John Rainolds] argumenteth, from Hezekiah his breaking downe of the Brazen Serpent, to the plucking downe of the ſigne of the Croſſe.

   • [1762], attributed to Thomas Augustine Arne, “Preface”, in Artaxerxes. An English Opera. […], London: […] J[acob] and R[ichard] Tonson […], →OCLC:

     […] And Lord Lanſdown, in his Preface to the Britiſh Enchanters, exclaims againſt that Species of Dramatic Dialogue, which (inſtead of being free, natural, and eaſy, as Converſation ſhould be) is preciſe, or formal, argumenting pro and con, like Diſputants in a School; […]

   • a. 1848, Thomas Chalmers, “Introductory Essay to a Treatise on the Faith and Influence of the Gospel. By the Rev. Archibald Hall.”, in Miscellanies; Embracing Reviews, Essays, and Addresses, New York, N.Y.: Robert Carter & Brothers, […], published 1851, →OCLC, page 416:

     But, can this be alleged of him who has oft been heard to speak of faith and of works together—and who, after argumenting the utter worthlessness of the latter, has confined most rigidly to the former all of power and of efficacy that there is in the business of salvation?

   • 1869, Mark Twain [pseudonym; Samuel Langhorne Clemens], chapter XIX, in The Innocents Abroad, or The New Pilgrims’ Progress; […], Hartford, Conn.: American Publishing Company. […], →OCLC, page 190:

     Here, in Milan, is an ancient tumble-down ruin of a church, is the mournful wreck of the most celebrated painting in the world—»The Last Supper,» by Leonardo da Vinci. […] And the first thing that occurred was the infliction on us of a placard fairly reeking with wretched English. […] And then Peter is described as «argumenting in a threatening and angrily condition at Judas Iscariot.»

   • 1983, Gregory J. Scott, Marketing Bhutan’s Potatoes: Present Patterns and Future Prospects, Lima, Peru: International Potato Center, →OCLC, page 77:

     Hence, domestic potato marketing cannot be argumented in such fashion.

   • 1993, Andreas Gourmelon, “A Method to Analyse the Strain of Memory of Elderly Persons Working with Information Technologies”, in E. Ballabio, I. Placencia-Porrero, and R. Puig de la Bellacasa, editors, Rehabilitation Technology: Strategies for the European Union: […] (Technology and Informatics; 9), Amsterdam; Oxford, Oxfordshire: IOS Press, →ISBN, →ISSN, page 211:

     It may be argumented that many elderly persons stay at home and do not even try to use a ticket machine.

   • 1999, Bernd A. Neubauer; Ulrich Stephani; Hermann Doose, “The Genetics of Rolandic Epilepsy and Related Conditions: Multifactorial Inheritance with a Major Gene Effect”, in S[amuel] F[rank] Berkovic, P. Genton, E. Hirsch, and F. Picard, editor, Genetics of Focal Epilepsies: Clinical Aspects and Molecular Biology (Current Problems in Epilepsy; 13), London: John Libbey & Company, →ISBN, →ISSN, part II (The Idiopathic Age-related Focal Epilepsies), page 57:

     This was first enunciated by Loiseau et al. (1967) when he argumented that RE ‘does not exist’ in clinical practice, referring to its pure, typical form.

   • 2012, Harry Fokkens, “Background to Dutch Beakers: A Critical Review of the Dutch Model”, in Harry Fokkens and Franco Nicolis, editors, Background to Beakers: Inquiries into Regional Cultural Backgrounds of the Bell Beaker Complex, Leiden: Sidestone Press, →ISBN, abstract, page 9:

     The settlement data do in fact not support the Dutch Model, and it is argumented that the ¹⁴C-evidence for the model is absent as well.

   • 2013, Daniel Gurski, “Conclusion”, in Customer Experiences Affect Customer Loyalty: An Empirical Investigation of the Starbucks Experience Using Structural Equation Modeling, Hamburg: Anchor Compact, Anchor Academic Publishing, →ISBN, page 45:

     Although it is argumented that organizational learning is based on individual learning (Song et al., 2008), the insights from this study are not generalizable for business-to-business markets.

2. (intransitive, obsolete) To adduce evidence, to provide proof.

   • 1558, Quintine Kennedy [i.e., Quintin Kennedy], chapter 5, in Ane Compendius Tractiue Conforme to the Scripturis of Almychtie God, Ressoun, and Authoritie, […], [Edinburgh: J. Scot], →OCLC, signature C.ii.:

     Albeit that it apperteneth to the apoſtolis, be the puiſtoun of God to tak ordour in all materis off debait cõcernyng ye faith, & ſpecialie to iterprete ye ſcripturis, as yat quhilkis had yͤ ſpreit of god, & wer yͤ trew kirk: It argumẽtis [argumentis] not yat vtheris, quha hes ꝯuenit [conuenit] ſenſyne in generale ꝯſales [consales] had the ſpreit of GOD, or wer the trew kirk: […]

Conjugation[edit]

References[edit]

Further reading[edit]

Catalan[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Latin argūmentum.

Pronunciation[edit]

• (Balearic) IPA^(key): /əɾ.ɡuˈment/
• (Central) IPA^(key): /ər.ɡuˈmen/
• (Valencian) IPA^(key): /aɾ.ɡuˈment/

Noun[edit]

argument m (plural arguments)

1. argument (reason)
2. (computing) argument
3. plot, storyline
4. (mathematics) argument
5. (grammar) argument

[edit]

• argumentar

Further reading[edit]

• “argument” in Diccionari de la llengua catalana, segona edició, Institut d’Estudis Catalans.
• “argument”, in Gran Diccionari de la Llengua Catalana, Grup Enciclopèdia Catalana, 2023
• “argument” in Diccionari normatiu valencià, Acadèmia Valenciana de la Llengua.
• “argument” in Diccionari català-valencià-balear, Antoni Maria Alcover and Francesc de Borja Moll, 1962.

Czech[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): [ˈarɡumɛnt]

• audio (Czech Republic)

  (file)

Noun[edit]

argument m

1. argument (fact or statement used to support a proposition)

Declension[edit]

Derived terms[edit]

[edit]

See also[edit]

• parametr m

Further reading[edit]

• argument in Příruční slovník jazyka českého, 1935–1957
• argument in Slovník spisovného jazyka českého, 1960–1971, 1989

Danish[edit]

Noun[edit]

argument n (singular definite argumentet, plural indefinite argumenter)

1. argument

Declension[edit]

[edit]

• argumentere

References[edit]

• “argument” in Den Danske Ordbog

Dutch[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Middle Dutch argument, from Old French argument, from Latin argūmentum.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ˌɑr.ɣyˈmɛnt/
• Hyphenation: ar‧gu‧ment
• Rhymes: -ɛnt

Noun[edit]

argument n (plural argumenten, diminutive argumentje n)

1. An argument (fact or statement used to support a proposition).
   1. (logic, philosophy) A series of propositions, intended so that the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
2. (mathematics) An argument (independent variable of a function).
3. (programming) An argument (value or reference passed to a function).
4. (linguistics) An argument (any of the phrases that bears a syntactic connection to the verb of a clause).
5. (obsolete) A decision.
6. (obsolete) A subject matter, theme or topic.
7. (obsolete) A quarrel, a dispute, an argument.

Derived terms[edit]

• argumenteren
• autoriteitsargument
• deelargument
• gelegenheidsargument
• hoofdargument
• onderargument
• subargument
• superargument

Descendants[edit]

• Afrikaans: argument

French[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Borrowed from Latin argūmentum, from arguō (“prove, argue”).

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /aʁ.ɡy.mɑ̃/

Noun[edit]

argument m (plural arguments)

1. argument

   Quels que soient les arguments que vous avancez, je ne pourrai pas vous croire.

   No matter what arguments you propose, I won’t be able to believe you.

2. (grammar) argument of a verb, phrase syntactically connected to a verb (object and subject)

Derived terms[edit]

• argument d’autorité
• argumentaire
• argumenter
  • argumentation

[edit]

• arguer

See also[edit]

• (grammar): valence

Further reading[edit]

• “argument”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012.

Maltese[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Borrowed from Italian argomento.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ar.ɡuˈmɛnt/

Noun[edit]

argument m (plural argumenti)

1. argument

[edit]

Norwegian Bokmål[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Latin argumentum.

Noun[edit]

argument n (definite singular argumentet, indefinite plural argument or argumenter, definite plural argumenta or argumentene)

1. argument

[edit]

• argumentere
• argumentasjon

References[edit]

• “argument” in The Bokmål Dictionary.

Norwegian Nynorsk[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Latin argumentum.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /ɑrɡʉˈmɛnt/

Noun[edit]

argument n (definite singular argumentet, indefinite plural argument, definite plural argumenta)

1. argument

[edit]

• argumentasjon

References[edit]

• “argument” in The Nynorsk Dictionary.

Polish[edit]

Etymology[edit]

Borrowed from Latin argūmentum.

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /arˈɡu.mɛnt/
• Rhymes: -umɛnt
• Syllabification: ar‧gu‧ment

Noun[edit]

argument m inan (diminutive argumencik)

1. (literary) point, argument (fact or statement used to support a proposition)
2. (philosophy, logic, mathematics, programming) argument

Declension[edit]

Derived terms[edit]

Further reading[edit]

• argument in Wielki słownik języka polskiego, Instytut Języka Polskiego PAN
• argument in Polish dictionaries at PWN

Romanian[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From French argument, from Latin argumentum.

Noun[edit]

argument n (plural argumente)

1. argument

Declension[edit]

Serbo-Croatian[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

• IPA^(key): /arɡǔment/
• Hyphenation: ar‧gu‧ment

Noun[edit]

argùment m (Cyrillic spelling аргу̀мент)

1. argument (fact or statement used to support a proposition)
2. (philosophy, logic, mathematics, programming) argument

Declension[edit]

Swedish[edit]

Pronunciation[edit]

Noun[edit]

argument n

1. an argument supporting a stance
2. (mathematics) an argument; an independent variable passed to a function
3. (programming) an argument; a variable passed to a function

Declension[edit]

Declension of argument
	Singular	Plural
Indefinite	Definite	Indefinite	Definite
Nominative	argument	argumentet	argument	argumenten
Genitive	arguments	argumentets	arguments	argumentens

[edit]

• argumentation
• argumentera

Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Acronyms, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Educalingo cookies are used to personalize ads and get web traffic statistics. We also share information about the use of the site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.

Download the app
educalingo

The conservative argument is that the economy is like the weather, that it just operates automatically.

Sidney Blumenthal

PRONUNCIATION OF ARGUMENT

GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY OF ARGUMENT

Argument is a noun.

WHAT DOES ARGUMENT MEAN IN ENGLISH?

Definition of argument in the English dictionary

The first definition of argument in the dictionary is a quarrel; altercation. Other definition of argument is a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate. Argument is also a point or series of reasons presented to support or oppose a proposition.

WORDS THAT RHYME WITH ARGUMENT

SYNONYMS OF «ARGUMENT»

The following words have a similar or identical meaning as «argument» and belong to the same grammatical category.

TRANSLATION OF ARGUMENT

Find out the translation of argument to 25 languages with our English multilingual translator.

TENDENCIES OF USE OF THE TERM «ARGUMENT»

The term «argument» is very widely used and occupies the 7.352 position in our list of most widely used terms in the English dictionary.

Principal search tendencies and common uses of argument

FREQUENCY OF USE OF THE TERM «ARGUMENT» OVER TIME

10 QUOTES WITH «ARGUMENT»

Famous quotes and sentences with the word argument.

10 ENGLISH BOOKS RELATING TO «ARGUMENT»

Discover the use of argument in the following bibliographical selection. Books relating to argument and brief extracts from same to provide context of its use in English literature.

10 NEWS ITEMS WHICH INCLUDE THE TERM «ARGUMENT»

Find out what the national and international press are talking about and how the term argument is used in the context of the following news items.

REFERENCE

« EDUCALINGO. Argument [online]. Available <https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/argument>. Apr 2023 ».

• Defenition of the word argument

  • A loud or noisy verbal confrontation between two or more people.
  • A fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true.
  • a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; «the argument over foreign aid goes on and on»
  • a variable in a logical or mathematical expression whose value determines the dependent variable; if f(x)=y, x is the independent variable
  • a summary of the subject or plot of a literary work or play or movie; «the editor added the argument to the poem»
  • a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true; «it was a strong argument that his hypothesis was true»
  • a dispute where there is strong disagreement; «they were involved in a violent argument»
  • a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement; «they were involved in a violent argument»
  • a course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating a truth or falsehood; the methodical process of logical reasoning
  • (computer science) a reference or value that is passed to a function, procedure, subroutine, command, or program
  • a summary of the subject or plot of a literary work or play or movie
  • a fact or assertion offered as evidence that something is true
  • a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal
  • a contentious speech act; a dispute where there is strong disagreement

Synonyms for the word argument

• • arguing
  • argumentation
  • case
  • claim
  • contention
  • contestation
  • controversy
  • debate
  • disagreement
  • disceptation
  • disputation
  • dispute
  • excerpt
  • fight
  • independent variable
  • line
  • line of reasoning
  • literary argument
  • logical argument
  • parameter
  • point
  • quarrel
  • reason
  • row
  • spat
  • squabble
  • statement
  • tilt

Similar words in the argument

• • argument
  • argument’s
  • argumentation
  • argumentation’s
  • argumentative
  • arguments

Hyponyms for the word argument

• • adducing
  • argle-bargle
  • argy-bargy
  • case
  • casuistry
  • clincher
  • con
  • counterargument
  • determiner
  • determining factor
  • fight
  • firestorm
  • last word
  • line of inquiry
  • line of questioning
  • logomachy
  • polemic
  • policy
  • pro
  • proof
  • sparring
  • specious argument

Hypernyms for the word argument

• • abstract thought
  • address
  • computer address
  • conflict
  • difference
  • difference of opinion
  • discussion
  • dispute
  • evidence
  • give-and-take
  • logical thinking
  • reasoning
  • reference
  • sum-up
  • summarization
  • summary
  • value
  • variable
  • variable quantity
  • word

See other words

• • What is ameublement
  • The definition of ardoise
  • The interpretation of the word ardeur
  • What is meant by amen
  • The lexical meaning ambition
  • The dictionary meaning of the word archives
  • The grammatical meaning of the word ambassadeur
  • Meaning of the word architecte
  • Literal and figurative meaning of the word archimandrite
  • The origin of the word ampholyte
  • Synonym for the word argumentation
  • Antonyms for the word amplification
  • Homonyms for the word ariette
  • Hyponyms for the word aristocrate
  • Holonyms for the word ana
  • Hypernyms for the word anachronisme
  • Proverbs and sayings for the word analogie
  • Translation of the word in other languages anarchie

• Go to Preferences page and choose from different actions for taps or mouse clicks.

‘argument‘ also found in these entries (note: many are not synonyms or translations):