Abstract
In this paper, we use concepts, structure and tools from argumentation theory to show how conversational implicatures are triggered by conflicts of presumptions. Presumptive implicatures are shown to be based on defeasible forms of inference used in conditions of lack of knowledge, including analogical reasoning, inference to the best explanation, practical reasoning, appeal to pity, and argument from cause. Such inferences are modelled as communicative strategies used to fill knowledge gaps by shifting the burden of proof to provide the missing contrary evidence to the other party in a dialogue. Through a series of illustrative examples, we show how such principles of inference are based on common knowledge about the ordinary course of events shared by participants in a structured dialogue setting in which they take turns putting forward and responding to speech acts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
For an overview of the roots of Grice’s theory of implicature, see (Davis 2007).
References
Aristotle. 1984. Topics. Translated by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. In The complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Asher, Nicholas, and Alex Lascarides. 2006. Indirect speech acts. Synthese 128: 183–228.
Bach, Kent. 1994. Meaning, speech acts, and communication. In Basic topics in the philosophy of language, ed. Robert Harnish, 3–21. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Bach, Kent. 1999. The myth of conventional implicature. Linguistics and philosophy 22: 237–366.
Bach, Kent. 2003. Speech acts and pragmatics. In Blackwell. Guide to the philosophy of language, eds. Michael Devitt and Richard Hanley, 147–167. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ballard, Lee, Robert Conrad, and Robert Longacre. 1971. The deep and surface grammar of interclausal relations. Foundations of language 7(1): 70–118.
Barker, Stephen. 2003. Truth and conventional implicature. Mind 112(445): 1–33.
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances. Malden: Blackwell.
Crothers, Edward. 1979. Paragraph structure inference. Norwood: Ablex.
Davis, Wayne. 2007. How normative is implicature? Journal of pragmatics 39: 1655–1672.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1968. Le structuralisme en linguistique. In Qu’est-ce que le structuralisme?, eds. Oswald Ducrot, Todorov Tzvetan, Dan Sperber, Moustafa Safouan, and Wahl François, 13–96. Paris: Seuil.
Ducrot, Oswald. 1972. De Saussure à la philosophie du langage, preface to John Searle, Les actes de langage, 7–34. Paris: Hermann.
Fischer, David. 1970. Historians’ fallacies. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodwin, Jean. 2001. The noncooperative pragmatics of arguing. In Pragmatics in 2000: Selected papers from the 7th International Pragmatics Conference, vol. II, ed. Enikö Nemeth, 263–277. Antwerp: International Pragmatics Association.
Grice, Paul. 1961. The causal theory of perception. Proceedings of the Aristotelian society, Supplementary 35: 121–152.
Grice, Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In The logic of grammar, eds. Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, 64–75. Encino, California: Dickenson.
Grice, Paul. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Grimes, Joseph. 1975. The thread of discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
Grosz, Barbara, and Candice Sidnert. 1986. Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational linguistics 12(3): 175–204.
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobbs, Jerry. 1979. Coherence and coreference. Cognitive science 3: 67–90.
Hobbs, Jerry. 1985. On the coherence and structure of discourse. Report No. CSLI-85-37, Center for the study of language and information, Stanford University.
Lascarides, Alex, and Nicholas Asher. 1991. Discourse relations and defeasible knowledge. In Proceedings to the 29th annual meeting of the association of computational linguistics (ACL91), Berkeley USA, 55–63. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for computational linguistics.
Levinson, Stephen. 1995. Three levels of meaning. In Grammar and meaning, ed. Frank Palmer, 90–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macagno, Fabrizio. 2008. Dialectical relevance and dialectical context in Walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal logic 28(2): 102–128.
Macagno, Fabrizio, and Douglas Walton. 2009. Argument from analogy in law, the classical tradition, and recent theories. Philosophy and rhetoric 42(2): 154–182.
Pap, Arthur. 1960. Types and meaninglessness. Mind 69(273): 41–54.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1951. Act and person in argument. Ethics 61(4): 251–269.
Rescher, Nicholas. 1977. Dialectics: a controversy-oriented approach to the theory of knowledge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rigotti, Eddo. 2005. Congruity theory and argumentation. Studies in communication sciences, Special Issue: 75–96.
Sperber, Dan, and Deidre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomason, Richmond. 1990. Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In Intentions in communication, ed. Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, 325–363. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Vanderveken, Daniel, and John Searle. 1985. Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vanderveken, Daniel. 2002. Universal grammar and speech act theory. In Essays in speech act theory, ed. Daniel Vanderveken, and Susumu Kubo, 25–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Walton, Douglas, and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogue. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1989. Informal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1990. What is reasoning? What is an argument? Journal of philosophy 87: 399–419.
Walton, Douglas. 1992. Slippery slope arguments. Newport News: Vale Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1995. A pragmatic theory of fallacy. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1997. Appeal to pity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Walton, Douglas. 1998. The new dialectic, conversational contexts of argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2002. Legal argumentation and evidence. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Walton, Douglas. 2010. Types of dialogue and burden of proof. In Computational models of argument: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, eds. Pietro Baroni, Frederico Cerutti, Massimilano Giacomin, and Guillermo Simari, 13–24. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. Relevance theory. In Handbook of pragmatics, ed. Laurence Horn, and Gregory Ward, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.
Yule, George. 2008. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Macagno, F., Walton, D. (2013). Implicatures as Forms of Argument. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M. (eds) Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01010-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01011-3
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)