Argumentation and meaning
This special issue aims to explore the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of meaning in terms of their significance and relevance in the study of argumentation. Accordingly, the contributors to the project, who have all presented their work during the 2nd Argumentation and Language conference, which took place in Lugano in February 2018, [1] 1 have been specifically instructed to produce papers which explicitly tackle the importance of the study of meaning for that of argumentative practices. All papers therefore cover at least one aspect of this complex relationship between argumentation and meaning, which contributes to delivering a state-of-the-art panorama on the issue. Drawing from computational linguistics, semantics, pragmatics and discourse analysis, the contributions to this special issue will illuminate how the study of meaning in its different forms may provide valuable insights for the study of people’s argumentative practices in different contexts, ranging from the political to the private sphere. This introductory discussion tackles specific aspects of the intricate relationship between pragmatic inference and argumentative inference – that is, between meaning and argumentation –, provides a brief survey of existing interfaces between the study of meaning and that of argumentation, and concludes with a presentation of the contributions to this special issue.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The relationship between pragmatic inference and argumentative inference
- 2.1Pragmatic inference and argumentative inference
- 2.2How pragmatic inference can impact argumentative inference
- 2.2.1The interpretative dimension
- 2.2.2The rhetorical dimension
- 3.A (brief) survey of what the analysis of argumentation has gained from the study of meaning
- 3.1Methodological advantages: Assisting in argumentative reconstructions
- 3.2Theoretical advantages: Understanding argumentative practices more accurately
- 3.3Normative advantages: Accounting for types of arguments and fallacies
- 4.Presentation of the contributions to this special issue
- Notes
-
References
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1977 “
Deux mais en français?”.
Lingua 431: 23–40.


Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
1983 L’argumentation dans la langue. Sprimont: Editions Mardaga.

Austin, John L.
1962 How to do things with words (Vol. 1955) London: Oxford University Press.

Barnes, Jonathan
2014 Complete works of Aristotle, volume 1: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1921). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bermejo Luque, L.
2011 Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.


Doury, Marianne
(ed) 2010 L’inscription langagière de l’argumentation. (
Special issue of Verbum 32(1)). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.

Doury, Marianne
2016 Argumentation: analyser textes et discours. Paris: Armand Colin.

Ducrot, Oswald, Danièle Bourcier, and Sylvie Bruxelles
1980 Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.

Govier, Trudy
2010 A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.

Greco Morasso, Sara
2012 “
Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case study in media argumentation”.
Discourse Studies 14(2): 197–216.


Grice, Paul
1975 “
Logic and conversation”. In
Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (Vol. 3), ed. by
Peter Cole and
Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.

Grice, Paul
1989 Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Hamblin, Charles
1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.

Hastings, A. C.
1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation (PhD Thesis). Northwestern University.

Hinton, M.
2019 “
Language and argument: A review of the field”.
Research in Language 17(1): 93–103.


Hosman, Lawrence A.
2002 Language and persuasion. In
The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, ed. by
James P. Dillard and
Michael Pfau, 371–390. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.


Lakoff, George
2004 Don’t think of an elephant: Progressive values and the framing wars – A progressive guide to action. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lambda-L Group
1975 “
Car, parce que, puisque”.
Revue Romane 10(2): 248–280.

Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald
2013 “
When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account”.
Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B): 164–177.


Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2009 “
Intuitive and reflective inferences”. In
Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. by
Jonathan Evans and
Keith Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2011 “
Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory”.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74.


Micheli, Raphaël
2012 “
Les visées de l’argumentation et leurs corrélats langagiers: une approche discursive”.
Argumentation et analyse du discours 91.
[URL]
Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure
Oswald, Steve
2016a “
Commitment Attribution and the Reconstruction of Arguments”. In
The Psychology of Argument. Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, ed. by
Fabio Paglieri,
Laura Bonelli, and
Silvia Felletti, 17–32. London: College Publications.

Oswald, Steve
2018 “
Pragmatic inference and argumentative inference”. In
Argumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol. 21), ed. by
Steve Oswald and
Didier Maillat, 615–629. London: College Publications.

Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin
(eds) 2018a Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Cham: Springer.


Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin
2018b “
Introduction”. In
Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. by
Steve Oswald,
Thierry Herman, and
Jérôme Jacquin, 1–21. Cham: Springer.


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, ed. by
Thierry Herman and
Steve Oswald, 313–343. Bern: Peter Lang.

Plantin, Christian
2016 Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Lyon: ENS éditions.

Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco
2019 Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer.


Rocci, A.
2006 “
Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication”.
Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4): 409–442.


Rocci, A.
2017 Modality in argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer.


Searle, John R.
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance. Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “
Epistemic Vigilance”.
Mind and Language 25(4): 359–393.


Thibodeau, Paul H. and Lera Boroditsky
2011 “
Metaphors We Think With : The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning”.
PLOS ONE 6(2), e16782.


Tindale, Christopher
1992 “
Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments”.
Argumentation 6(2): 177–188.


van Eemeren, Frans H., 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.


van Eemeren, Frans H., & Grootendorst, Rob.
1992 Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. London: Routledge.

van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
2004 A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
2007 Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.


Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
1995 Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY press.

Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.


Cited by
Cited by 2 other publications
Ervas, Francesca, Maria Grazia Rossi, Amitash Ojha & Bipin Indurkhya
2021.
The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation.
Frontiers in Psychology 12

Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald
2021.
The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives.
Argumentation 35:3
► pp. 361 ff.

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 2023. 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.