Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Modality in Argumentation pp 1–32Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 375 Accesses

Part of the book series: Argumentation Library ((ARGA,volume 29))

Abstract

This short chapter introduces the notions of modality and argumentation and lays down the central research questions of the book, which revolve around modality in relation to the essential structure of arguments . The Introduction also serves as a disclaimer explaining how the book is neither a contribution to modal logic nor to the theory of non-monotonic, presumptive reasoning . The final section provides a reading guide previewing the following chapters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Aristotle (1926) in the references. Throughout the book, for the translation of passages from the works of Aristotle, I will normally refer to the Revised Oxford Translation edited by Jonathan Barnes (see Aristotle 2014). On a few occasions, like the quote in epigraph to this Introduction, I will refer to another translation that appears more transparent for the purposes at hand.

  2. 2.

    This book represents the (belated) “final report” of the research project Modality in Argumentation . A semantic -argumentative study of predictions in Italian economic-financial newspapers. The project was generously supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant: 100012-120740/1) from September 2008 to December 2011. Andrea Rocci was the principal investigator, Eddo Rigotti co-applicant. Johanna Miecznikowski was senior researcher and Gergana Zlatkova participated as Ph.D. student.

  3. 3.

    The expression “working logic” is used in the title of the IV essay of the book, where it is opposed to the “idealised logic” informed by the standard of logical necessity / deductive validity (cf. Toulmin 2003 [1958]: 135).

  4. 4.

    The definition offered here is close, in several respect, to the one adopted by one specific normative pragmatic theory, namely Pragma-Dialectics (cf. van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 1). The definition also notably draws on ideas found in Rigotti and Greco-Morasso (2009), Jacobs (2000) and Pinto (1996), especially in what concerns the relationship between argumentation and inference .

  5. 5.

    One prominent logico-philosophical tradition developed the theoretical construct of possible world to deal with reasoning about alternative situations. David Lewis’ (1973) work on counterfactuals is one of the most influential in-depth discussions of possible worlds in modern philosophical logic. The book is also noteworthy for the impact it had on the linguistic semantic analysis of modality and conditional constructions .

  6. 6.

    The specific type of graph representations used in the book derives from the view of argumentation structure espoused by the Pragma-Dialectical theory of argumentation (cf. Snoeck Henkemans 1997; van Eemeren et al. 2007, Chapter 7).

  7. 7.

    The term alethic modality (from Gr. alétheia ‘truth’) is widely used in the philosophical and logical literature (but less so in linguistics) to refer to what is possible or necessary in view of true facts. Different kinds of alethic modality can be envisaged according to the range of facts that are taken into consideration: physical, metaphysical, logical, etc. Alethic modalities will be examined in detail in Chap. 5 as part of a semantic typology of modalities geared at capturing their role in arguments .

  8. 8.

    On the vast range of everyday alethic modalities see the brilliant remarks in Lycan (1994: 171–178). Note that among certain students of linguistic semantics (cf., for instance, Lyons 1977: 791; Palmer 1986: 11; Papafragou 2000; Nuyts 2006: 8) alethic modality is understood in a much narrower sense as synonymous with logical modality . For a more thorough discussion of varieties of alethic modality among the linguistically and argumentatively relevant “flavors” of modality the reader is directed to Chap. 5.

  9. 9.

    In the eponymous Toulmin model the (modal ) qualifier , indicating the strength of the inferential step, is a slot of its own and is neither part of the claim (that is the standpoint ) nor of the data that support it.

  10. 10.

    More precisely the qualifier indicates the strength conferred by the warrant to the inferential step from the data to the claim (Toulmin [1958] 2003: 94). The place of modality in the Toulmin model will be discussed at length in Chap. 3.

  11. 11.

    In the context of Snoeck Henkeman’s original discussion only the reconstruction of standpoints was at issue, but the same could be said of the reconstruction of arguments .

  12. 12.

    The comparison with the role of time in narrative can be more telling if we consider that narrativity requires temporality – a text that does not order events in time cannot be a story – but temporality does not represent a sufficient condition: it is not enough to order events in time to tell a story. For instance, narrative relations have a pragmatic facet, they are an action of a narrator telling a story to the narratee, and the picture can be further complicated by the presence of a point of view in the narrative and by the evocation of multiple voices, which aren’t identified with the narrator nor with the narratee.

  13. 13.

    I follow von Fintel (2006) in recovering this term introduced by medieval logicians.

  14. 14.

    In the strongly anti-referentialist structuralist climate of the early 1960s, Harald Weinrich (2004 [1964]), a student of French linguistics, famously set out to create a structuralist text linguistics that sought to connect the structure of narrative directly with tenses, dispensing of the troublingly referential notion of time. In the process Weinrich discovered interesting non temporal properties of French (and Italian) tenses, which he (ironically) conceptualized in terms of different attitudes of the emitter (narrating vs commenting) towards the (reference!) world. Later on, Weinrich had to soften considerably his once belligerent stance on the irrelevance of time, while keeping the other interesting aspects of his analysis.

  15. 15.

    In fact, the line of research developed in the present book was the inspiration of a closely related but autonomous research focusing specifically on evidential constructions as direct argumentative indicators carried out by Johanna Miecznikowski and Elena Musi within the research project From perception to inference . Evidential, argumentative and textual aspects of perception predicates in Italian (Swiss National Science Foundation Grant n. 141350). See, in particular, Miecznikowski and Musi (2015), Musi (2014, 2015).

  16. 16.

    The project Modality in Argumentation . A semantic -argumentative study of predictions in Italian economic-financial newspapers was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant: 100012-120740/1) from September 2008 to December 2011. See also footnote 1.

  17. 17.

    It is worth noting how, at the time of publication of The Uses of Argument , the allegation of playing otiosely with English idioms as hobbyist lexicographers was a common (and for the most part unfair) accusation leveled against ordinary language philosophers by more logically oriented analytic philosophers.

  18. 18.

    According to the respective scope of the negation and the modal , the negation can be either internal (when the negated proposition forms the prejacent of the modal) or external (when the whole modal proposition is negated).

  19. 19.

    This is a quality implicature, as one cannot coherently say that a state of affairs is alethically impossible and then admit it as a belief. Doing so would amount to presenting oneself as either insincere (I say what I don’t believe) or irrational (I admit beliefs that I know to be impossible).

  20. 20.

    The problem with (14) lies in premise (14.b): the conclusion (14.c) is validly deduced only if (14.b) holds true in all relevant alternatives rather than simply happening to be the case contingently. In other words, (13.b) needs to be covertly understood as necessary in some relevant sense. “Otherwise – as observed by Hintikka (1973: 137)— it might happen that then the Bs to which A possibly applies are not Cs any more when this possibility is actualized”. In term of the movie theater example: suppose that the possibility that all female spectators like the movie is indeed realized only tomorrow: the fact that today all first row spectators happen to be female does not tell us anything about the occupation of the first row tomorrow. To infer (14.c) we would instead need to know that the seat of the first row are always reserved to female spectators.

  21. 21.

    Truth be told, Pinto includes in his discussion also evaluative attitudes that are clearly non-doxastic and seeks to even non-propositional attitudes (Pinto 2001: 15–17). I do not consider this further extension for my present purposes.

References

  • Aijmer K (2009) Seem and evidentiality. Funct Lang 16(1):63–88. doi:10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aikhenvald AY (2004) Evidentiality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous (2006) De propositionibus modalibus. In: Alarcón E (ed) Corpus Thomisticum. St. Thomae de Aquino Opera omnia. Fundación Tomás de Aquino 2000–2013. http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/. Accessed 5 Oct 2016

  • Aristotle (1926) The “art” of rhetoric (LOEB Classical Library vol. 193). Freese JH (ed) Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2014) The complete works of Aristotle: the Revised Oxford Translation, One-volume digital edition. Barnes J (ed) Princeton, Princeton University Press (originally published in 1984 as 2 volumes)

    Google Scholar 

  • Asher N, Lascarides A (2003) Logics of conversation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee J, Perkins R, Pagliuca W (1994) The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafe W, Nichols J (1986) Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex, Norwood

    Google Scholar 

  • Colmegna M (1984) Enunciazioni circa il modo. Per una grammatica della logica delle modalità. Versus Quaderni di Studi Semiotici 38(39):149–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornillie B (2007) Evidentiality and epistemic modality in Spanish (Semi)Auxiliaries. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dendale P (1994) Devoir épistémique, marqueur modal ou évidentiel? Lang Fr 102(1):24–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dendale P, Tasmowski L (1994) Présentation. L’évidentialité ou le marquage des sources du savoir. Lang Fr 102:3–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ennis RH (2006) Probably. In: Hitchcock D, Verheij B (eds) Arguing on the Toulmin model. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 145–164

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fahnestock J, Secor M (1982) A Rhetoric of argument. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Faller MT (2002) Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. Ph.D dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (1985) Dialectical situations and argument analysis. Informal Logic 7(2–3):151–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (1991) Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure. Foris Publications, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (2000) What type of statements are there? Argumentation 14(2):135–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (2005) Acceptable premises: an epistemic approach to an informal logic problem. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman JB (2011) Argument structure: representation and theory. Springer, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaik F (1992) Radio talk-show therapy and the pragmatics of possible worlds. In: Duranti A, Goodwin C (eds) Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 271–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Geurts B (1999) Presuppositions and pronouns. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Guentchéva Z (1996) L’énonciation médiatisée. Peeters, Leuven

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacquard V (2011) Modality. In: Maienborn C, von Heusinger K, Portner P (eds) Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 1484–1515

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J (1962) Knowledge and belief. an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Cornell University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hintikka J (1973) Time and necessity. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn L (2001 [1989]) A natural history of negation. Stanford, CSLI Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn L (2014) The cloud of unknowing. In: Hoeksema J, Gilbers D (eds) Black book: a festschrift in honor of Frans Zwarts. University of Groningen, Groningen, pp 178–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs S (2000) Rhetoric and dialectic from the standpoint of normative pragmatics. Argumentation 14:261–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann S, Condoravdi C, Harizanov V (2006) Formal approaches to modality. In: Frawley W (ed) The expression of modality. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 71–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila S (1982) Modal logic. In: Kretzmann N, Kenny A, Pinborg J (eds) The cambridge history of later medieval philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 342–357

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Knuuttila S (2013) Medieval theories of modality. In: The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (eds) Edward N. Zalta et al. Stanford. Standford University Press. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/modality-medieval. Accessed 5 October 2016

  • Kratzer A (1977) What “must” and “can” must and can mean. Linguist Philos Int J 1:337–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A (1991) Modality. In: von Stechow A, Wunderlich D (eds) Semantik/Semantics: an international handbook of contemporary research. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 639–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer A (1981) The notional category of modality. In: Eikmeyer H-J, Rieser H (eds) Words, worlds, and contexts: new approaches in word semantics. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 38–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Kripke SA (1963) Semantical analysis of modal logic I. Normal modal propositional calculi. Math Logic Q (Formerly: Zeitschrift für mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik) 9(5–6):67–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruger AN (1975) The nature of controversial statements. Philos Rhetor 8(3):137–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepore E (2000) Meaning and argument. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson SC (2000) Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (2007) Counterfactuals. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycan WG (1994) Relative modality. In: Lycan W (ed) Modality and meaning. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 171–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons J (1977) Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McCready E, Ogata N (2007) Evidentiality, modality and probability. Linguistics and Philosophy 30(2):147–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miecznikowski J, Musi E (2015) Verbs of appearance and argument schemes: Italian sembrare as an argumentative indicator. In: Garssen B, van Eemeren FH (eds) Reflections on theoretical issues in argumentation theory. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 259–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Musi E (2014) Evidential modals at the semantic- argumentative interface: appearance verbs as indicators of defeasible argumentation. Informal Logic 34(4):417–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Musi E (2015) Dalle apparenze alle inferenze: i verbi sembrare ed apparire come indicatori argomentativi. Ph.D. dissertation, Università della Svizzera italiana

    Google Scholar 

  • Musi E, Ghosh, D, Muresan, S (2016) Towards feasible guidelines for the annotation of argument schemes. In: Proceedings of the third workshop on argument mining (ArgMining2016): 82–93. http://aclweb.org/anthology/W/W16/W16-2810.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2016

  • Nuyts J (2006) Modality: overview and linguistic issues. In: Frawley W (ed) The expression of modality. Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer F (1986) Mood and modality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Papafragou A (2000) Modality: issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C, Olbrechts-Tyteca L (1969) The new rhetoric. In: Wilkinson J, Weaver P (eds) A treatise on argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame

    Google Scholar 

  • Pietrandrea P (2007) The grammatical nature of some epistemic-evidential adverbs in spoken Italian. Ital J Linguistics 19(1):39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto RC (1996) The relation of argument to inference. In: van Benthem J et al (eds) Logic and argumentation. North-Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto RC (2001) Generalizing the notion of argument. In: Pinto R (ed) Argument, inference and dialectic. Collected papers on informal logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 10–20

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pinto RC (2007) On understanding ‘probably’ and other modal qualifiers. In: Hansen HV et al (eds) Dissensus and the search for common Ground, CD ROM. OSSA, Windsor, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (1987) Defeasible reasoning. Cogn Sci 11:481–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock JL (2010) Defeasible reasoning and degrees of justification. Argum Computation 1:7–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portner P (2009) Modality. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N (2006a) Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N (2006b [1971]) On Aristotle’s apodeictic syllogism. In: Studies in the history of logic, Ontos Verlag,Frankfurt, 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N (2006c [1979]) Russell and modal logic. In: Studies in the history of logic, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 159–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher, N (2006d [1979]) Default reasoning. In: Studies in the history of logic, Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt, 173–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigotti E, Greco Morasso S (2010) Comparing the argumentum model of topics to other contemporary approaches to argument schemes: the procedural and material components. Argumentation 24(4):489–512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts C (1989) Modal subordination and pronominal anaphora in discourse. Linguistics and philosophy 6:683–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocci A (2005) La Modalità Epistemica tra Semantica e Argomentazione. I.S.U. Università cattolica, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocci A (2008) Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of agumentation. Argumentation 22(2):165–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocci A (2014) The discourse system of financial communication. Cahiers de l’ILSL34: 201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocci A, Luciani M (2016) Economic-financial journalists as argumentative intermediaries. J Argumentation in Context 5(1):88–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbisà M (2014) Evidentiality and illocution. Intercult Pragmat 11(3):463–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans F (1992) Analysing complex argumentation. SicSat, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeck Henkemans F (1997) Analysing complex argumentation: the reconstruction of multiple and coordinatively compound argumentation in a critical discussion. SicSat, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and cognition. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Squartini M (2004) Disentangling evidentiality and epistemic modality in romance. Lingua: Int Rev Gen Linguistics 114(7):873–895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squartini M (2008) Lexical vs. grammatical evidentiality in French and Italian. Lingua 46(5):917–947

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin SE (2003 [1958]) The uses of argument. Updated ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Tseronis A (2009) Qualifying standpoints. Stance adverbs as a presentational device for managing the burden of proof. LOT Dissertation Series 233. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Uckelman SL (2009a) Modalities in medieval logic. Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, Amsterdam. https://www.illc.uva.nl/Research/Publications/Dissertations/DS-2009-04.text.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2016

  • Uckelman SL (2009b) On modal propositions. http://lyrawww.uvt.nl/~sluckelman/latex/modalibus/modalibus.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2012 (no longer available)

  • Uckelman SL, (2012) Modal logic in the metalogicon. In: New perspectives on John of Salisbury (Durham University 19 April 2012), 1–9. http://lyrawww.uvt.nl/~sluckelman/latex/jos-modal/jos-modal.pdf. Accessed 4 June 2012 (no longer available)

  • van Benthem J (1996) Logic and argumentation. In: van Benthem J, van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R, Veltman F (eds) Logic and argumentation. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 27–42

    Google Scholar 

  • van Benthem J (2009) One logician’s perspective on argumentation. Cogency J Reasoning and Argumentation 1(2):13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Auwera J (1996) Modality: the three-layered scalar square. J Semant 13(3):181–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH (2010) Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Grootendorst R (2004) A systematic theory of argumentation: the pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eemeren FH, Houtlosser P, Henkemans FS (2007) Argumentative indicators in discourse a pragma-dialectical study. Springer, Amsterdam

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • von Fintel K (2006) Modality and language. In: Borchert DM (ed) Encyclopedia of philosophy, 2nd edn. Detroit, MacMillan Reference USA. http://web.mit.edu/fintel/fintel-2006-modality.pdf. Accessed 5 Oct 2016

  • Vorobej M (2006) A theory of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vos A (2006) Philosophy of John Duns Scotus. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1996) Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Studies in argumentation series. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D, Reed C, Macagno F (2008) Argumentation schemes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weinrich H (2004) Tempus. Le Funzioni dei Tempi nel Testo, Bologna/Il Mulino

    Google Scholar 

  • Westbrook I (2014) Strategic financial and investor communication: the stock price story. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods J (2010) Defeasible reasoning. In: Reed C, Tindale CW (eds) Dialectics, dialogue and argumentation. An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of reasoning and argument. College Publications, London, pp 239–261

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto di Argomentazione, Linguistica e Semiotica, Università della Svizzera italiana University of Lugano, Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland

    Andrea Rocci

Authors
  1. Andrea Rocci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rocci, A. (2017). Introduction. In: Modality in Argumentation. Argumentation Library, vol 29. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1063-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1061-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1063-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation