模态限定与LNMA中的辩论言语行为：实践与理论问题

IF 1 2区文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION

Argumentation Pub Date : 2021-05-10 DOI:10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5

Alejandro Secades Gómez

{"title":"模态限定与LNMA中的辩论言语行为：实践与理论问题","authors":"Alejandro Secades Gómez","doi":"10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (LNMA) with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a theoretical level, is that the distinction between ontological and epistemic modals is highly problematic in LNMA.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46219,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modal Qualification and the Speech-Act of Arguing in LNMA: Practical Aspects and a Theoretical Issue\",\"authors\":\"Alejandro Secades Gómez\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (LNMA) with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a theoretical level, is that the distinction between ontological and epistemic modals is highly problematic in LNMA.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Argumentation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Argumentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10503-021-09551-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本文借助图表、实例和基本的形式化技术，对论证语言规范模型（LNMA）提出的论证言语行为进行了分析。重点是LNMA最新颖的问题之一，模态限定，以及认识模态和本体模态之间的区别。第一个结论是，使用LNMA来分析和评估所提出的实际论证过于复杂，无法按原样应用。第二个结论是在理论层面上，LNMA中本体论和认识论模态之间的区别存在很大问题。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

Modal Qualification and the Speech-Act of Arguing in LNMA: Practical Aspects and a Theoretical Issue

查看原文本刊更多论文

Modal Qualification and the Speech-Act of Arguing in LNMA: Practical Aspects and a Theoretical Issue

This work analyses the speech-act of arguing as proposed by Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation (LNMA) with the help of diagrams, examples and basic formalization techniques. The focus is set on one of the most novel issues of LNMA, modal qualification, and the distinction between epistemic and ontological modals. The first conclusion is that employing LNMA in order to analyse and evaluate actual argumentation as it is proposed is too complex to be applied as is. The second conclusion, at a theoretical level, is that the distinction between ontological and epistemic modals is highly problematic in LNMA.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Argumentation Multiple-

CiteScore

2.20

自引率

16.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Argumentation is an international and interdisciplinary journal. Its aim is to gather academic contributions from a wide range of scholarly backgrounds and approaches to reasoning, natural inference and persuasion: communication, rhetoric (classical and modern), linguistics, discourse analysis, pragmatics, psychology, philosophy, logic (formal and informal), critical thinking, history and law. Its scope includes a diversity of interests, varying from philosophical, theoretical and analytical to empirical and practical topics. Argumentation publishes papers, book reviews, a yearly bibliography, and announcements of conferences and seminars.To be considered for publication in the journal, a paper must satisfy all of these criteria:1. Report research that is within the journals’ scope: concentrating on argumentation 2. Pose a clear and relevant research question 3. Make a contribution to the literature that connects with the state of the art in the field of argumentation theory 4. Be sound in methodology and analysis 5. Provide appropriate evidence and argumentation for the conclusions 6. Be presented in a clear and intelligible fashion in standard English