Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anscombre, Jean-Claude, and Oswald Ducrot
    1977 “Deux mais en français?”. Lingua43: 23–40. 10.1016/0024‑3841(77)90046‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90046-8 [Google Scholar]
  2. 1983L’argumentation dans la langue. Sprimont: Editions Mardaga.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words (Vol. 1955) London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barnes, Jonathan
    2014Complete works of Aristotle, volume 1: The revised Oxford translation (Vol.192). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bermejo Luque, L.
    2011Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1761‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1761-9 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dascal, M.
    2003Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.120
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.120 [Google Scholar]
  7. Doury, Marianne
    (ed) 2010L’inscription langagière de l’argumentation. (Special issue of Verbum 32(1)). Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2016Argumentation: analyser textes et discours. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Ducrot, Oswald, Danièle Bourcier, and Sylvie Bruxelles
    1980Les mots du discours. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Govier, Trudy
    2010A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Greco Morasso, Sara
    2012 “Contextual frames and their argumentative implications: A case study in media argumentation”. Discourse Studies14(2): 197–216. doi:  10.1177/1461445611433636
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445611433636 [Google Scholar]
  12. Grice, Paul
    1975 “Logic and conversation”. InSyntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (Vol. 3), ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1989Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hamblin, Charles
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hastings, A. C.
    1963 A Reformulation of the Modes of Reasoning in Argumentation (PhD Thesis). Northwestern University.
  16. Hinton, M.
    2019 “Language and argument: A review of the field”. Research in Language17(1): 93–103. 10.2478/rela‑2019‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2019-0007 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hosman, Lawrence A.
    2002 Language and persuasion. InThe persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, ed. byJames P. Dillard and Michael Pfau, 371–390. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781412976046.n19
    https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n19 [Google Scholar]
  18. Lakoff, George
    2004Don’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]
  19. Lambda-L Group
    Lambda-L Group 1975 “Car, parce que, puisque”. Revue Romane10(2): 248–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2009 “Intuitive and reflective inferences”. InTwo Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, ed. byJonathan Evans and Keith Frankish, 149–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0007
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199230167.003.0007 [Google Scholar]
  22. 2011 “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences34(2): 57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  23. Micheli, Raphaël
    2012 “Les visées de l’argumentation et leurs corrélats langagiers: une approche discursive”. Argumentation et analyse du discours9. journals.openedition.org/aad/1406
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Morency, Patrick, Steve Oswald, and Louis de Saussure
    2008 “Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic approach”. Belgian Journal of Linguistics22: 197–219. 10.1075/bjl.22.10mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.22.10mor [Google Scholar]
  25. Oswald, Steve
    2016a “Commitment Attribution and the Reconstruction of Arguments”. InThe Psychology of Argument. Cognitive Approaches to Argumentation and Persuasion, ed. byFabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felletti, 17–32. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2016b “Rhetoric and cognition: Pragmatic constraints on argument processing”. InRelevance Theory : Recent developments, current challenges and future directions, ed. byManuel Padilla Cruz, 261–285. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.268.10osw
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.10osw [Google Scholar]
  27. 2018 “Pragmatic inference and argumentative inference”. InArgumentation and Inference: Proceedings of the 2nd European Conference on Argumentation, Fribourg 2017 (Vol.2), ed. bySteve Oswald and Didier Maillat, 615–629. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin
    (eds) 2018aArgumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2018b “Introduction”. InArgumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. bySteve Oswald, Thierry Herman, and Jérôme Jacquin, 1–21. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_1 [Google Scholar]
  30. Oswald, Steve and Marcin Lewiński
    2014 “Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy”. InRhétorique et cognition: Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives – Rhetoric and Cognition: Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive strategies, ed. byThierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Plantin, Christian
    2016Dictionnaire de l’argumentation. Lyon: ENS éditions.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rigotti, Eddo, and Sara Greco
    2019Inference in Argumentation: A Topics-Based Approach to Argument Schemes. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑04568‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04568-5 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rocci, A.
    2006 “Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication”. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4): 409–442. doi:  10.1515/IP.2006.026
    https://doi.org/10.1515/IP.2006.026 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2017Modality in argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑024‑1063‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1 [Google Scholar]
  35. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance. Communication and cognition. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic Vigilance”. Mind and Language25(4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Thibodeau, Paul H. and Lera Boroditsky
    2011 “Metaphors We Think With : The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning”. PLOS ONE6(2), e16782. doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  39. Tindale, Christopher
    1992 “Audiences, relevance, and cognitive environments”. Argumentation6(2): 177–188. 10.1007/BF00154324
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154324 [Google Scholar]
  40. van Eemeren, Frans H.
    2010Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aic.2
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aic.2 [Google Scholar]
  41. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    1984Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris publications. 10.1515/9783110846089
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110846089 [Google Scholar]
  42. van Eemeren, Frans H., & Grootendorst, Rob.
    1992Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst
    2004A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. van Eemeren, Frans H., Peter Houtlosser, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans
    2007Argumentative Indicators in Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  45. Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe
    1995Commitment in dialogue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Walton, Douglas, Chris Reed, and Fabrizio Macagno
    2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511802034
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034 [Google Scholar]
  47. Yus, Francisco
    1999 “Misunderstandings and explicit/implicit communication”. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)9(4): 487–517. 10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.9.4.01yus [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; inference; meaning; pragmatics; semantics
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error