Abstract
This paper discusses the epistemological and methodological bases of a scientific theory of meaning and proposes a detailed version of a formal theory of argumentation based on Anscombre and Ducrot's conception. Argumentation is shown to be a concept which is not exclusively pragmatic, as it is usually believed, but has an important semantic body. The bridge between the semantic and pragmatic aspects of argumentation consists in a set of gradual inference rules, called topoi, on which the argumentative movement is based. The content of each topos is determined at the pragmatic level, while the constraints on the forms of the topoi attached to a sentence are determined at the semantic level. Applications and possible applications toartificial intelligence and to cognitive sciences are discussed. In particular, the gradual models used to account for argumentation are shown to be extremely promising for Knowledge management, a discipline which includes knowledge acquisition, knowledge representation, transmission of knowledge (communication, interfaces, etc.), knowledge production (decision help, reasoning, etc.). A first formal model is presented and discussed: it is shown in details how it accounts for most of the argumentative features of sentences containing but, little and a little, and how it can be extended to describe sentences containing other argumentative connectives. However, this model is shown to be too simple and to violate the compositionality principle, which is shown, in the first section, to bean important methodological principle for any scientific theory. After a detailed analysis of the possible reasons for this violation, an improved model is proposed and its adequacy is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anscombre, J.-C. and Oswald Ducrot: 1978, ‘Echelles implicatives, échelles argumentatives et lois du discours,’ Semantikos 2–3, 43–65.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Oswald Ducrot: 1978, ‘Deux mais en français’, Lingua 43, 23–40.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Oswald Ducrot: 1978, ‘Lois logiques et lois argumentatives’, Le Français Moderne 46 (4), 347–357.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Oswald Ducrot: 1979, ‘Lois logiques et lois argumentatives’, Le Français Moderne 47 (1), 35–52.
Anscombre, J.-C. and Oswald Ducrot: 1983, L'argumentation dans la langue, Mardaga.
Bassano, Dominique and Christian Champaud: 1987, ‘Argumentative and informative functions of language: The processing of French intensity modifierrs presque, à peine, à peu près’, European Bulletin of Cognitive Psychology 7 (6), 605–631.
Bruxelles, Sylvie, Denis Carcagno and Corrine Fournier: 1987, ‘Towards the automatic construction of topoi from the lexicon’, CCAI 6 (4), 309–328.
Bruxelles, Sylvie and Pierre-Yves Raccah: 1983, ‘L'analyse argumentative’, working papers of UA962-CNRS, Conseil d'État, Paris.
Bruxelles, Sylvie and Pierre-Yves Raccah: 1987,‘'Information et argumentation: L'expression de la conséquence’, Proceediongs of the 1987 Conference COGNITIVA, Paris.
Dascal, Marcelo: 1983, Pragmatics and the Philosphy of Mind, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Dieng, Rose: 1987: ‘Genération de topoi á partir de régles d'un systéme expert’, CCAI 6 (4) 329–340.
Ducrot, Oswald; 1972, Dire et ne pas dire, Herman, Paris.
Ducrot, Oswald: 1973, La preuve et le dire, Mame, Paris.
Ducrot, Oswald: 1979, ‘frLes lois du discours’, Langue Française 42, 21–33.
Dcurot, Oswald: 1980, ‘Les Echelles argumentatives, Ed. de minuit.
Ducrot, Oswald: 1980, ‘Analyses pragmatiques’, Communications 32 11–60.
Ducrot, Oswald: 1983, ‘Opérateurs argumentatifs etvisée argumentative’, Cahiers de Linguistique Française 5, 7–36.
Ducrot, Oswald: 1987, ‘Argumentaion et topoi argumentatifs’, Actes de la 8éme recontre des professeurs de français de l'enseignement supériur , University of Helsinki, pp.27–57.
Ducrot, O. et al.: 1980, Les mots du discours (recueil d'articles), Ed. de Minuit.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1982, ‘Presupposition, signification et implicaion’, Semantikos 6 (2).
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1984a, ‘Argumentation et raisonnement implicite’, LEs modes de raisonnement, Proceedings of the second coference of the Association pour la Recherche Cognitive, Orsay.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1984b, ‘Oú voulez-vous en venir?’, Proceedings of the Conference on Neuro-psycho-linguistics Cognitive Sciences, St-Riquier, May.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1984c, ‘Argumentation in representation semantics’, Proceedings of the tenth Conference in Computational Lignuistics (COLING), Stanford, Cal., June 1984.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1985a, ‘Argumentation, sémantique et pragmatique’, Proceedings of the 1985 Conference COGNITIVAm, Paris.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves; 1985b, ‘Le droit a-t-il le drioit dêtre ambigu?’, Brises 7, 93–113.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1986, ‘Sémantique épistémique et loi de prédominance de l'argumentation’, Cahiers de linguistique française.
Raccah, Pierre-Yves: 1987, ‘Langaugenaturel: Modéle ou outil pour l'intelligence artificielle’, Technologos 4, 55–70.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raccah, PY. Modelling argumentation and modelling with argumentation. Argumentation 4, 447–483 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184770
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00184770