, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 165–189

Modality and its Conversational Backgrounds in the Reconstruction of Argumentation



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 indicators Modal qualifier Toulmin Relative modality theory Argumentation schemes 


  1. Busa, R.S.J. 2005. Index Thomisticus. In Corpus Thomisticum, eds. E. Alarçon and E. Bernot, Pamplona: Fundación Tomás de Aquino. Available online at: [Last visited: 11/29/2007].
  2. Cartson, R. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Conte, A. 1988. Eidos. An essay on constitutive rules. Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. 11: 251–257.Google Scholar
  4. Conte, A. 1993. Deontisch vs. anankastisch. In Rechtssystem und praktische Vernunft, eds. R. Alexy and R. Dreier, 102–109 (Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, Beiheft 51, 1993.). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
  5. Conte, M.-E. 1995. Epistemico, deontico, anankastico. In Dalla pragmatica alla sintassi. Modalità e modi nell’acquisizione di seconde lingue, eds. A. Giacalone Ramat, G. Crocco-Galèas, 309–316. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
  6. Dendale, P. 1994. Devoir épistémique, marqueur modal ou évidentiel ? Langue Française 102: 24–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dendale, P., and W. De Mulder. 1996. Déduction ou abduction: le cas de devoir inférentiel. In L’énonciation médiatisée, ed. Z. Guentchéva, Louvain/ Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
  8. Doherty, M. 1987. Epistemic meaning. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Ennis, R.H. 2006. Probably. In Arguing on the Toulmin Model. New essays in argument analysis and evaluation, eds. D. Hitchcock, B. Verheij, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Faller, M.T. 2002. Semantics and pragmatics of evidentials in Cuzco Quechua. PhD Thesis, Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  11. Freeman, J.B. 1991. Dialectics and the macrostructure of arguments. A theory of argument structure. Berlin/New York: Foris.Google Scholar
  12. Hengeveld, K. 1988. Illocution, mood and modality in a functional grammar of Spanish. Journal of Semantics 6: 227–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Houtlosser, P. 2002. Indicators of a point of view. In Advances in pragma-dialectics, ed. F. van Eemeren, Amsterdam/Newport (Virgina): SicSat/Vale Press.Google Scholar
  14. Hugues, G.E., and M.J. Cresswell. 1968. Introduction to modal logic. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  15. Kaufmann, S., C. Condoravdi, and V. Harizanov. 2006. Formal approaches to modality. In The expression of modality, ed. W. Frawley. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  16. Kratzer, A. 1977. What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1/1: 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Words, worlds and contexts. new approaches in word semantics, eds. H.J. Eikmeyer, H. Rieser, Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  18. Kratzer, A. 1991. Modality. In Semantik/Semantics, eds. A. von Stechow, D. Wunderlich. Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  19. Kronning, H. 1996. Modalité, cognition et polysémie: sémantique du verbe modal devoir. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  20. Kronning, H. 2001. Pour une tripartition des emplois du modal devoir. In Les Verbes modaux, eds. P. Dendale, J. van der Auwera, Cahiers Chronos. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D. 1979. Scorekeeping in a language game. Journal of Philosophical Language, 8: 339–359 (reprinted in S. Davis (ed.) Pragmatics: a reader, Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1991: 416–427).Google Scholar
  22. Lycan, W.G. 1994. Modality and meaning. Dordrecht ; Boston etc.: Kluwer Academic Publ.Google Scholar
  23. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics II. Cambridge/London/New York/Melnbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nuyts, J. 2001a. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: a cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  25. Nuyts, J. 2001b. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and modality. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Papafragou, A. 1998. Inference and word meaning: the case of the modal auxiliaries. Lingua, 105: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Papafragou, A. 2000. Modality: issues in the semantics-pragmatics interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  29. Papafragou, A. 2006. Epistemic modality and truth conditions. Lingua 116: 1688–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pinto, R. 2001. Generalizing the notion of argument. In Argument, inference and dialectic. Collected papers on informal logic, ed. R. Pinto, Dordercht/ Boston/ London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Récanati, F. 1989. The pragmatics of what is said. Mind and Language, 4.Google Scholar
  32. Rigotti, E. 2003. La linguistica tra le scienze della comunicazione. In Linguistica e Nuove Professioni, eds. A. Giacalone Ramat, E. Rigotti, A. Rocci, Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  33. Rigotti, E. 2005. Congruity theory and argumentation. In Argumentation in dialogic interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, eds. M. Dascal, F.H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Stati, A. Rocci, 97–118. Special Issue.Google Scholar
  34. Rocci, A. 1997. Inferenza ed enunciazione nella semantica dei modali. L’analisi linguistica e letteraria 2: 535–553.Google Scholar
  35. Rocci, A. 2000 a. L’interprétation épistémique du futur en italien et en français: une analyse procédurale. In Inférences directionnelles, représentations mentales et subjectivité, Cahiers de Linguistique Française, ed. J. Moeschler, 22: 241–274.Google Scholar
  36. Rocci, A. 2000 b. La modalità epistemica e l’inferenza nel discorso. Ph.D. Thesis, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan.Google Scholar
  37. Rocci, A. 2005a. La modalità epistemica tra semantica e argomentazione. Milano: Pubblicazioni dell’ISU –Università Cattolica.Google Scholar
  38. Rocci, A. 2005b. Epistemic readings of modal verbs in Italian: the relationship between propositionality, theme-rheme articulation an inferential discourse relations. In Crosslinguistic views on tense, aspect and modality, eds. B. Hollebrandse, A. van Hout, C. Vet, 229–246, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi (Cahiers Chronos 13).Google Scholar
  39. Rocci, A. 2005c. Connective predicates in monologic and dialogic argumentation. In Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction. Studies in Communication Sciences, eds. M. Dascal, F.H. van Eemeren, E. Rigotti, S. Stati, A. Rocci, 97–118. Special Issue.Google Scholar
  40. Rocci, A. 2006. Le modal italien dovere au conditionnel : évidentialité et contraintes sur l’inférence des relations de discours argumentatives. Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique (TRANEL) 2006/45: 71–98.Google Scholar
  41. Rocci, A. 2007a. Epistemic modality and questions in dialogue. The case of the Italian interrogative constructions in the subjunctive mood. In Tense, mood and aspect. Theoretical and descriptive issues, eds. L. de Saussure, J. Moeschler, G. Puskas. 129–153, Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi (Cahiers Chronos, 17).Google Scholar
  42. Rocci, A. 2007b. Modality and its conversational backgrounds in the reconstruction of argumentation. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, eds. F.H. van Eemeren, J.A. Blair, Ch.A. Willard, B. Garssen, 1185–1194. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  43. Rocci, A., and R. Palmieri. 2007. Economic-financial news stories between narrative and forecast. Paper presented at IPRA 2007 10th International Pragmatics Conference – Göteborg, Sweden, 8–13 July 2007 as part of the panel Les narrativités médiatiques.Google Scholar
  44. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech ats. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Snoeck-Henkemans, F.A. 1997. Analysing complex argumentation. Amsterdam: SicSat.Google Scholar
  46. Snoeck-Henkemans, F.A. 2001. Argumentation, explanation and causality: an exploration of current linguistic approaches to textual relations. In Text representation: linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects, eds. T. Sanders, W. Spooren, J. Schilperoord, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  47. Toulmin, S.E. 1958. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. van Eemeren, F.H., and R. Grootendorst: 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation. The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. van Eemeren, F.H., P. Houtlosser, and F. Snoeck-Henkemans. 2007. Argumentative indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. van Eemeren, F.H. et al. 1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory. A handbook of historical backgrounds and contemporary developments. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D.N. 1990. Practical reasoning: goal-driven, knowledge-based, action-guiding argumentation. Savage (Maryland): Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  52. Walton, D.N. 1996. Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  53. Walton, D.N. 2006. Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wertheimer, R. 1972. The significance of sense: meaning, modality and morality. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  55. White, A. 1975. Modal thinking. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations