Ambiguity in Argumentation: The Impact of Contextual Factors on Semantic Interpretation

• Autorzy: Dimitra Serakioti , Petros Stefaneas
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This article is concerned with the concept of ambiguity in argumentation. Ambiguity in linguistics lies on the coexistence of two possibly interpretations of an utterance, while the role of contextual factors and background/encyclopedic knowledge within a specific society seems to be crucial. From a systemic point of view, Halliday has proposed three main language functions (meta-functions): a) ideational function, b) interpersonal function, c) textual function. Language could reflect speaker's experience of his external and internal world, interpersonal relationships and organization of text, respectively. Lexico-grammatical choices under a micro-level perspective and context (the environment of language) may lead to inconsistent interpretations through semantic or syntactic ambiguities. In philosophy and argumentation logic, strategies of ambiguity have been investigated by Aristotle, since the first sophistic movement. In his Topics, Metaphysics and Rhetoric, has pointed out the notion of "τὸ διττῶς / διχῶς λεγόμενον", meaning that a term can have different senses and double interpretation. In this paper we discuss how we reconstruct the meaning of an utterance in dialogue through the mechanism of interpretation and how we analyze and construe ambiguities, combining the insights of argumentation theory and text linguistics. Research results show that in case of misunderstanding, the "best interpretation" is the less defeasible one according to contextual presumptions.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Linguistics; Philosophy; Culture

PL

Językoznawstwo; Filozofia; Kultura

• Czasopismo: Studia Humana
• Rocznik: 2022
• Tom: 11(3-4)
• Strony: 18--24

Twórcy

autor

Dimitra Serakioti

• Democritus University of Thrace, Greece

autor

Petros Stefaneas

• National Technical University of Athens, Greece

Bibliografia

• Aristotle. Topics. In the complete works of Aristotle, vol. I, ed. Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
• Atlas, J. Philosophy Without Ambiguity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
• Chang, C.-H., & Krulee, G. Resolution of ambiguity in Chinese and its application to machine translation. Machine Translation, 6(4), 1991, pp. 279-315.
• Chapman, S., & Routledge, C. (Eds.).Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
• Crivelli, P. Aristotle on Truth, Cambridge, 2004.
• Degano, C. Corpus linguistics and argumentation: Retrieving argumentative patterns in UK prime ministerial debates. Journal of Argumentation in Context 5(2), 2016, pp.113-138.
• Golitsis, P. "Aristotle on Ambiguity". Strategies of Ambiguity in Ancient Literature, edited by Martin Vöhler, Therese Fuhrer and Stavros Frangoulidis, Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2021, pp. 11-28.
• Halliday, M.A.K. & R. Hasan. Language, context and text: a social semiotic perspective. Deakin University Press, 1985.
• Halliday, M.A.K. An introduction to functional grammar.2nd edition. London: Edward Arnold, 1994.
• Halliday, M. A. K. The notion of context in language education. Jonathan J. Webster (ed.), Language and education. Volume 7 in the collected works of M. A. K. Halliday, 250-264. London & New York: Continuum, 2007.
• Hamblin, C. L. Fallacies. London: Methuen, 1970.
• Hinton, M. Corpus Linguistics Methods in the Study of (Meta)Argumentation. Argumentation 35, 2021, pp. 435-455.
• Horn, L.R.A pragmatic approach to certain ambiguities. Linguist Philos 4, 1981, pp. 321-358.
• Hutchby, I. Oh', Irony and Sequential Ambiguity in Arguments. Discourse & Society 12 (2), 2001, pp. 123-41.
• Jackson, S. Frans H. van Eemeren and Wu Peng (ed.). Contextualizing Pragma-Dialectics: John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, Volume 12 of the Argumentation in Context Series. Argumentation 32 (2), 2017, pp. 293-299.
• Jaszczolt, K. Discourse, beliefs and intentions. Oxford: Elsevier, 1999.
• Koniak, P. and Cwalina, W. Does it pay to avoid speaking straight about controversial issues? Impact of argumentative ambiguity on the perception of the speaker, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, 2022, pp. 84-97.
• Larina, T., Ozyumenko V. and Ponton D. Persuasion strategies in media discourse about Russia: Linguistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics Levinson, S. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized Conversational 22 implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2019.
• Levinson, S. C. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. The MIT Press, 2000.
• Malinowski, B. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Charles K. Ogden & Ian A. Richards (eds.), The meaning of meaning, London: Routledge, 1935, pp. 146-152.
• Postal, P. On Certain Ambiguities. In Linguistic Inquiry, 5, 3, 1974.
• Schiaparelli, A. Aristotle on the fallacies of combination and division in Sophistici Elenchi 4.History and Philosophy of Logic, 2003.
• Smith, L. W. John-Steiner, V., Panofsky, C. P., Smith, L. W (eds.). "Context." Sociocultural Approaches to Language and Literacy: An Interactionist Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• van Eemeren, F. H. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2010.
• van Eemeren, F. H. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse in political deliberation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 2 (1), 2013, pp. 10-31.
• Walton, D. N. Informal logic: A pragmatic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/seal_2
• https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/make_1?q=make

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/sh-2022-0012