Cover not available

Article published In: Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 1–18

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Argumentation and meaning

 | University of Fribourg
 | Università della Svizzera Italiana
 | Università della Svizzera Italiana
 | Università della Svizzera Italiana
 | Università della Svizzera Italiana
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00005.osw
Abstract
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,
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 (47)
References
Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot. 1977. “Deux mais en français?”. Lingua 431: 23–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Sprimont: Editions Mardaga.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words (Vol. 1955). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan. 2014. Complete works of Aristotle, volume 1: The revised Oxford translation (Vol. 1921). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bermejo Luque, L. 2011. Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doury, Marianne (ed). 2010. L’inscription langagière de l’argumentation. ( Special issue of Verbum 32(1)). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Argumentation: analyser textes et discours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald, Danièle Bourcier, and Sylvie Bruxelles. 1980. Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Govier, Trudy. 2010. A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greco Morasso, Sara. 2012. “Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case study in media argumentation”. Discourse Studies 14(2): 197–216. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamblin, Charles. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hastings, A. C. 1963. A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation (PhD Thesis). Northwestern University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinton, M. 2019. “Language and argument: A review of the field”. Research in Language 17(1): 93–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambda-L Group. 1975. “Car, parce que, puisque”. Revue Romane 10(2): 248–280.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2): 57–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. 2008. “Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic approach”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 221: 197–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. “Rhetoric and cognition: Pragmatic constraints on argument processing”. In Relevance Theory : Recent developments, current challenges and future directions, ed. by Manuel Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin. (eds). 2018a. Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. “Introduction”. In Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. by Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin, 1–21. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plantin, Christian. 2016. Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Lyon: ENS éditions.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco. 2019. Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rocci, A. 2006. “Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4): 409–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Modality in argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibodeau, Paul H. and Lera Boroditsky. 2011. “Metaphors We Think With : The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning”. PLOS ONE 6(2), e16782. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tindale, Christopher. 1992. “Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments”. Argumentation 6(2): 177–188. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., & Grootendorst, Rob. 1992. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno. 2008. Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yus, Francisco. 1999. “Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) 9(4): 487–517. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Schumann, Jennifer
2025. Introduction. In The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies: An Experimental Approach [Argumentation Library, 46], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer
2025. Argumentation, Fallacies and Language. In The Pragmatics of Straw Man Fallacies: An Experimental Approach [Argumentation Library, 46], ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
D’Agostino, Giulia, Ella Schad, Eimear Maguire, Costanza Lucchini, Andrea Rocci & Chris Reed
2024. Superquestions and some ways to answer them. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:3 ► pp. 319 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve
2023. The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface. Languages 8:3 ► pp. 210 ff. DOI logo
Schumann, Andrew
2023. Argumentation tradition of traders in late antiquity. Journal of Argumentation in Context 12:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Ervas, Francesca, Maria Grazia Rossi, Amitash Ojha & Bipin Indurkhya
2021. The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey & Steve Oswald
2021. The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives. Argumentation 35:3 ► pp. 361 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue