Joint Meaning of Speech Acts of Arguing

Abstract

Argumentation is often described as a communicative activity. Assuming a Searlean approach to speech acts, Pragma-dialectics and the Linguistic Normative Model of Argumentation characterize it as a specific type of speech act. Recently I have argued that the Searlean approach assumed by both theories entails certain problems. To overcome them, I propose to distinguish two levels in the analysis of the illocutionary act of arguing. The first one is related to the speaker’s utterance, while the second refers to the communicative exchange involving both the speaker and the hearer. This paper explores the idea that the meaning that can be attributed to the illocutionary act of arguing at each of those levels differs. I will argue that it is necessary to distinguish between the speaker's meaning and the joint meaning of illocutionary acts of arguing.