http://www3.unil.

ch/wpmu/argage2015/
Argumentation & Language, 9-11 Sept. 2015 A!"A"# 2015
International Conference, University of Lausanne
Call
$ownloa% the call &or paper'.
Argumentation & Language
Lingui'tic mar(er', %i'cur'i)e proce''e', cogniti)e operation'
9-11 Septem*er 2015
+ni)er'it, o& Lau'anne
The CoRReA (Collectif Romand de Recherche sur lArgumentation) is pleased to issue the first call for participation to the
international conference Argumentation ! language", #hich #ill $e held at the University of Lausanne on %&'' (eptem$er
)*'+,
The conference see-s to attract scholars in language and communication science as #ell as researchers in cognitive science
#ho are interested in the description of the linguistic dimension of argumentation,
Contri$utors are e.pected to su$mit proposals falling into at least one or t#o of the three follo#ing areas of research/ a-
lingui'tic mar(er'. *- %i'cur'i)e proce''e'. c- cogniti)e operation', #hich constitute the three conference themes,
a- Lingui'tic mar(er'
Argument production is constrained $y the natural languages in #hich arguments are uttered0 the issue of the linguistic
em$ededness of argumentation #ill accordingly $e at the heart of the conference, 1ver the years, a num$er of approaches to
argumentation have e.pressed suspicion, if not mistrust, to#ards natural language/ the latter is seen 2 in the terms of 3aco$s
and 3ac-son ('%%)/ 45) 2 as a curtain" that needs to $e lifted to reveal the underlying reasoning processes, As 6arianne
7oury summarises it, the first concern of these approaches seems to $e to 8strip the argumentative te.t from its linguistic
garments, construed as an o$stacle to an understanding of its logic or conceptual structure" ()*'*/ 9),
Ta-ing on $oard the alternative vie#point, the conference intends to ta-e stoc- of the various trends in argumentative research
#hich rigorously and systematically study the linguistic mar-ers of argumentation, :e are thus loo-ing for research #hich,
regardless of methodological orientation, highlights ho# the description of linguistic phenomena is essential to our -no#ledge
of argumentation (and vice&versa), (everal directions of research may $e accordingly envisaged (this list is not e.haustive)/ the
theory of argumentation in language (argumentation dans la langue), #hich has $een developed since the '%;*s, sees in
argumentation an essential component of utterance meaning, if not of le.ical meaning/ recent developments in the field include
Carels theory of semantic $loc-s (Carel )*'*), The study of connectives has unfolded in a rich and long&standing tradition in
<rench circles of language science/ #e of course encourage su$missions of ne# research on such functional units #hich are
used to e.press argumentative instructions, :e could in this respect also adopt =lantins vie#point that the study of
connectives needs to $e $roadened and include other forms, such as ordinary argumentative metalanguage/ The indicator of
argumentative function can $e inde.ed on an ordinary term of the argumentative le.icon/ (counter)argument, >?@ premise,
o$Aection, refutation" ()*'*/ 54), The conference thus #elcomes research on argumentative indicators (see van Bemeren !
(noec- Cen-emans )**4), $roadly defined as #ords and e.pressions that are crucial for an adeDuate reconstruction of
argumentative discourse", <inally, #or- on discourse relations is also #elcome, nota$ly research inspired from Rhetorical
(tructure Theory (6ann ! Thompson '%;;) #hich targets the linguistic and discursive dimensions of argumentation,
*- $i'cur'i)e proce''e'
In the #a-e of rhetorical approaches to argumentative te.ts, from =erelman ! 1l$rechts&Tytecas ('%+;) to the creation of
specialiEed Aournals in discourse analysis and argumentation (e,g,, Argumentation et Analyse du discours) and the multiplicity
of hand$oo-s and dictionaries that appeared from the '%%*s on (Re$oul '%%F, 6oliniG '%%), Hroar-e ! Tindale )**5, :alton
)**F among others), rhetorical techniDues designed to gain consent have no#adays $een reha$ilitated, Iet, they remain to $e
e.plored in their full linguistic and te.tual dimension, Argumentative schemes, from =erelman ! 1l$rechts&Tytecas typology
to :alton et al,s ()**;), are thus modes of reasoning #hose linguistic counterparts deserve finer grained analyses, 6ore
$roadly, the Duestion of argumentative structure ((noec- Cen-emans '%%), :alton '%%F, <reeman )*'') could $e addressed in
relation to the classical rhetoric division of te.ts or to issues of te.tual coherenceJcohesion,
In the spirit of complementarity, many categories of discourse analysis could $e revisited #ithin the persuasive dimension
traditionally associated to rhetoric, The follo#ing Duestions could accordingly constitute potential starting points of e.pected
su$missions/ is the fulfilment of a given discursive genres e.pectations conducive to any argumentative effectK (imilarly, does
the introduction of a narrative or a descriptive seDuence in an argumentative te.t, the resort to interte.tuality and to dialogical
allusions, or the e.ploitation of different te.tual dimensions have significant argumentative implicationsK In a nutshell, can
these discursive phenomena trigger argumentative effects that can $e compared to those of argument schemesK
(imilarly to numerous #or-s on ethos (6aingueneau '%%%, Amossy '%%%, )*'*) or pathos (:alton '%%), =lantin et al, )**),
6icheli )*'*), this conference is also meant to assess the interface $et#een the practice of argumentation, the rhetorical
situation (LitEer '%F;) and the analysis of discourse from the perspective of logos, As a conseDuence, the conference
programme #ill privilege contri$utions focused on (i) accounts of persuasive attempts that $orro# their format to discourse
genres deemed to $e only #ea-ly argumentative, (ii) the rhetorical dispositio and its possi$le te.tual and argumentative
structures, and (iii) argument schemes and #ays of identifying them in discourse, This list remains open and contri$utions
related to this general theme #hich address issues not listed here #ill also $e considered,
c- /ogniti)e operation'
A relatively recent cognitive trend in argumentation studies has emerged from the gro#ing influence of neigh$ouring
disciplines such as the psychology of reasoning (:ason '%F*, '%FF, Bvans ! <ran-ish )**%, 6ercier )*'', 6ercier ! (per$er
)**%, )*'') and the study of cognitive heuristics (Tvers-y ! Mahneman '%45, HigerenEer et al, '%%%), 1ur understanding of
the cognitive mechanisms solicited to perform reasoning tas-s 2 and inference more generally 2 is no#adays ma-ing great
progress $y relying on e.perimental methodologies, The application of these frame#or-s to the study of argumentation
remains nonetheless very often devoted to the study of deductive reasoning, 6oreover, the properly linguistic dimension of
argumentation is seldom considered in these circles and remains most of the times associated to the field of persuasion
research, :hile the latter allo#s us to gain insights into the argumentative role of specific linguistic structures, it oftentimes
constrains research to the issue of the rhetorical effectiveness of argumentation,
1ne of the goals of this conference is accordingly to provide an e.change platform for research at the cognitionJargumentation
interface #hich highlights the linguistic and discursive dimension of argumentation $y e.ploring the follo#ing Duestions
(#hich are, again, indicative and non&e.haustive)/ #hat are the cognitive counterparts of argument production and receptionK
:hat cognitive constraints affect the rhetorical (in)effectiveness of argumentative utterancesK Can the fallacious nature of
certain arguments and arguments schemes $e accounted for $y e.amining the nature of their cognitive processingK :hat are
the different cognitive functions solicited in argument processing, from the point of vie# $oth of production and receptionK
NNN
Hiven the a$ove rationale, the organising committee
encourages su$missions dealing #ith the interrelations $et#een language (its units, its levels, its functions and modes
of processing) and the #ay argumentation functions,
#ill give priority to proposals #hich ma-e their methods and analytical categories e.plicit and #hich privilege the
description of empirical data collected in corpora or empirically,
#ill select received su$missions on the $asis of anonymised a$stracts,