Les mots de l'argumentation

Herman, Thierry; Jacquin, Jérôme; Oswald, Steve

doi:10.3726/b14941

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Viewing argumentation as a type of pragmatic and conversational activity which is greatly shaped by contextual and communicative constraints is a research programme that has sparked considerable interest, for instance within the subfield of normative pragmatics (see e.g., Goodwin 2001;Goodwin and Innocenti 2019;Jacobs 2000;van Eemeren et al 1993;Innocenti 2022;Jacobs and Jackson 1982;Kauffeld 1998;Weger and Aakhus 2005) and more recently in conversational approaches to argument (Rocci et al 2020;Mundwiler and Kreuz 2018;Luginbühl and Kreuz 2020;Jacobs, Jackson, and Zhang 2022;Jacobs and Jackson 1992) or linguistic and pragmatic approaches to argumentation more broadly (Boogaart, Jansen, and van Leeuwen 2021;Oswald, Herman, and Jacquin 2018;Hinton 2021;Herman, Jacquin, and Oswald 2018;Herman and Oswald 2014;Pollaroli et al 2019;Bermejo Luque and Moldovan 2021;Lewiński et al 2023;). This growing body of research consistently investigates the pragmatics and argumentation interface, and, to a large extent, this special issue can be seen as participating in this linguistic turn in argumentation scholarship.…”

Section: Studying Meaning-making Resources For the Study Of Disagreem...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

Schumann,

Oswald

2024

JLAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The introduction to this special issue provides an overview of the notion of disagreement in relation to argumentative practices and presents the rationale for investigating disagreement management in argumentative discourse from a pragmatic perspective. It describes how existing accounts of disagreement in argumentation have focused on limited instances of the phenomenon, both in terms of its pragmatic embedding (which has predominantly focused on assertive speech acts) and of its scope (which usually covers the normative dimension of argumentative quality). The contributions to this special issue are then presented and contextualised within this broader topic to expound how each of them addresses key pragmatic aspects of disagreement management in argumentative discourse.

show abstract

Section: Studying Meaning-making Resources For the Study Of Disagreem...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

Schumann,

Oswald

2024

JLAC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, it showcases current work at this interface and fully contributes to what could be dubbed a linguistic turn in argumentation theory, which can be said to have found its first scholarly expression in the work of Oswald Ducrot, Jean-Claude Anscombre, and their colleagues (Anscombre and Ducrot 1983;Ducrot 1980;Ducrot et al 1980). More contemporarily, an important number of monographs, collective volumes, and Special Issues published over the last decade testify to the growing importance of linguistic aspects of argumentation (amongst which, prominently, Bermejo Luque and Moldovan 2021;Boogaart et al 2021;Herman et al 2018;Herman and Oswald 2014;Hinton 2021Hinton , 2023Lewi ński et al 2023;Oswald et al 2018Oswald et al , 2020Pollaroli et al 2019).…”

Section: Pragmatic Insights Into Argumentation: Some Pointersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface

Oswald

2023

Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In so doing, it contributes to the development of a recent trend in argumentation studies which tackles the relationships between argumentation and language (e.g. Herman et al 2018;Hinton 2019;Oswald et al 2018Oswald et al , 2020Pollaroli et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While the role of discourse connectives has long been acknowledged in argumentative frameworks, these approaches often take a coarse-grained approach to connectives, treating them as a unified group having similar effects on argumentation. Based on an empirical study of the straw man fallacy, we argue that a more fine-grained approach is needed to explain the role of each connective and illustrate their specificities. We first present an original corpus study detailing the main features of four causal connectives in French that speakers routinely use to attribute meaning to another speaker (puisque, étant donné que, vu que and comme), which is a key element of straw man fallacies. We then assess the influence of each of these connectives in a series of controlled experiments. Our results indicate each connective has different effects for the persuasiveness of straw man fallacies, and that these effects can be explained by differences in their semantic profile, as evidenced in our corpus study. Taken together, our results demonstrate that connectives are important for argumentation but should be analyzed individually, and that the study of fallacies should include a fine-grained analysis of the linguistic elements typically used in their formulation.

show abstract

Les mots de l'argumentation

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

Pragmatic perspectives on disagreement

The Pragmatics and Argumentation Interface

The Linguistic Formulation of Fallacies Matters: The Case of Causal Connectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About