Modalities as Indicators in Argumentative Reconstruction

Abstract

This paper addresses the role of modal expressions as argumentative indicators and the importance of considering the semantics of modality in the reconstruction of argumentation. Modal expressions include modal verbs, such as the English may, can, must, should, will and many other lexical and grammatical devices. For instance, in English we find modal adjectives (possible, necessary, probable, likely, certain), adverbs (maybe, necessarily, certainly, probably, likely, perhaps) and nouns (possibility, necessity, but also less obvious ones like risk). The present investigation builds on previous linguistic work on the semantics of modality (see Rocci, 1997, 2000a, 2000b, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007) which showed that modals can function as indicators of relations between discourse units in a text or dialogue, and that epistemic modals, in particular, can serve as signals of inferential, and hence argumentative, relations. Here we consider what this analysis entails for the task of reconstructing the structure of argumentation. To do so we will first go back to Toulmin’s views on the relevance of modality for understanding the structure of arguments and, more precisely, to the views he states in the very first chapter of The Uses of Argument concerning modals and fields of arguments. We will argue that Toulmin is indeed after something which is crucial for the semantics of the modals and relevant for the reconstruction of arguments, but, at the same time, his analysis is problematic on important respects. In the second part of the article we will present a view of modality, originating in linguistic research on formal semantics, which we believe can capture Toulmin’s insights but is not plagued by the same problems and thus can serve as the basis for a treatment of modals in their role of indicators of argumentation. Chapter 15 Modalities as Indicators in Argumentative Reconstruction