LINGUIST List 31.2524

Mon Aug 10 2020

Calls: Cog Sci, Disc Analys, Philosophy of Lang, Pragmatics/Switzerland

Editor for this issue: Lauren Perkins <laurenlinguistlist.org>



Date: 24-Jul-2020
From: Steve Oswald <steve.oswaldunifr.ch>
Subject: Pragmatic Perspectives on Disagreement in Argumentation
E-mail this message to a friend

Full Title: Pragmatic Perspectives on Disagreement in Argumentation
Short Title: PPDA

Date: 27-Jun-2021 - 02-Jul-2021
Location: Winterthur, Switzerland
Contact Person: Jennifer Schumann
Meeting Email: < click here to access email >

Linguistic Field(s): Cognitive Science; Discourse Analysis; Philosophy of Language; Pragmatics

Call Deadline: 25-Oct-2020

Meeting Description:

In argumentative settings - eristic ones in particular -, people exchange arguments in support of their opposing standpoints. Sometimes these disagreements are rooted in misunderstandings, other times in genuinely laid-out and understood opposing points of view. As argumentative exchanges may have far-reaching consequences (from belief change to the implementation of policies), and because these may end up being brought about through a misrepresentation of disagreements and of their causes, the study of disagreements is an important area of research that stands to gain from the input of pragmatic research.

When arguers disagree, they have a variety of choices to convey that there is a difference of opinion with the opponent. Sometimes these choices are signaled through linguistic markers that explicitly indicate that the speaker refutes the opponent’s position (e.g. “No”, “Yes, but…”, “I strongly disagree…”, “On the contrary”, …). But in argumentative reality, disagreements are not always as obvious. In fact, in many cases they are much subtler. In occurrences where part of an utterance is left implicit, one has to engage in pragmatic processing to work out unarticulated components of meaning, such as implicatures, presuppositions, etc. to fully retrieve the original speaker meaning. This also leaves room for inaccurate and uncharitable interpretations, retractions of commitments and even fallacious arguments (e.g. ad hominem or straw man attacks) that can further deepen such disagreements and make them prevail over more consensual outcomes that could be reached once the causes of a disagreement are made explicit.

This panel investigates how disagreements manifest themselves through the lens of language use in argumentative situations and how arguers manage them when they arise. The aim of this panel is to give the floor to different pragmatic approaches that may illuminate the notion of disagreement and to create room for diverse and fruitful discussions that arise from its pragmatic study.

Call for Papers:

The panel welcomes contributions that explore the notions of disagreement, commitment and deniability from theoretical as well as empirical angles. In the vein of recent work at the interface of linguistics, pragmatics and argumentation theory (Oswald et al. 2018; Oswald et al. 2020; Pollaroli et al., 2019), this panel is intended to consolidate and enrich the contribution of pragmatics to the study of argumentative practices.

Abstracts (300 words max., excluding references) should be submitted through the IPrA website (https://pragmatics.international/page/CfP) by 25 October 2020.

References:

Oswald, S., Greco, S., Miecznikowski-Fuenfschilling, J., Pollaroli, C. & Rocci, A. (Eds.). (2020). Argumentation and Meaning. Semantic and pragmatic reflexions [Special Issue]. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 9(1).

Oswald, S., Herman, T. & Jacquin, J. (2018). Argumentation and Language – Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations. Cham: Springer.

Pollaroli, C., Greco, S., Oswald, S., Miecznikowski-Fuenfschilling, J. & Rocci, A. (Eds.). (2019). Rhetoric and Language: Emotions and Style in Argumentative Discourse [Special Issue]. Informal Logic, 39(4).




Page Updated: 10-Aug-2020