, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 165–189

Modality and its Conversational Backgrounds in the Reconstruction of Argumentation


DOI: 10.1007/s10503-007-9065-8

Cite this article as:
Rocci, A. Argumentation (2008) 22: 165. doi:10.1007/s10503-007-9065-8


The paper considers the role of modality in the rational reconstruction of standpoints and arguments. The paper examines in what conditions modal markers can act as argumentative indicators and what kind of cues they provide for the reconstruction of argument. The paper critically re-examines Toulmin’s hypothesis that the meaning of the modals can be analyzed in terms of a field-invariant argumentative force and field-dependent criteria in the light of the Theory of Relative Modality developed within linguistic semantics, showing how this theory can provide a more adequate model for exploiting the modals as indicators. The resulting picture confirms Toulmin’s intuition only in part: on the one hand the modals are always relational in nature and dependent on a contextual conversational background of propositions; on the other hand only epistemic-doxastic modals directly express a speech-act level inferential relation between a set of premises and a standpoint. Other modalities express relations (e.g. causal or final relations) better seen as part of the content of the argument whose argumentative relevance depends on the argumentation scheme employed. Thus non-epistemic modals function as argumentative indicators only indirectly.


Argumentative indicatorsModal qualifierToulminRelative modality theoryArgumentation schemes

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Linguistics and SemioticsUniversity of LuganoLuganoSwitzerland, UK