Studia humana (SH) is a multi-disciplinary peer reviewed journal publishing valuable
contributions on any aspect of human sciences such as...

The article in the issue 11:3/4:

The date of the publication:
The number of pages:
The issue:
The Authors
Sofia Almpani, Elena Lisanyuk, Andrew Schumann, Antonis Kakas, Dimitra Serakioti, Petros Stefaneas, Vladimir A. Stepanov, Panayiotis V. Frangos, Marcin Trepczyński, Ted Peters, Konrad Szocik, Vojko Strahovnik,

Lectures at the Democritus University of Thrace, School of Educational Sciences. Her research interests include morphology, semantics, philosophy of language, discourse analysis and experimental linguistics.

Dr Petros Stefaneas is Associate Professor at the Department of Mathematics of the National Technical University of Athens, Greece. His research interests include logic and formal methods for computer science and philosophy of computation.


Ambiguity in Argumentation: The Impact of Contextual Factors on Semantic Interpretation

This article is concerned with the concept of ambiguity in argumentation. Ambiguity in linguistics lies on the coexistence of two possibly interpretations of an utterance, while the role of contextual factors and background/encyclopedic knowledge within a specific society seems to be crucial.  From a systemic point of view, Halliday has proposed three main language functions (meta-functions): a) ideational function, b) interpersonal function, c) textual function. Language could reflect speaker’s experience of his external and internal world, interpersonal relationships and organization of text, respectively. Lexico-grammatical choices under a micro-level perspective and context (the environment of language) may lead to inconsistent interpretations through semantic or syntactic ambiguities. In philosophy and argumentation logic, strategies of ambiguity have been investigated by Aristotle, since the first sophistic movement. In his Topics, Metaphysics and Rhetoric, has pointed out the notion of “τὸ διττῶς / διχῶς λεγόμενον”, meaning that a term can have different senses and double interpretation. In this paper we discuss how we reconstruct the meaning of an utterance in dialogue through the mechanism of interpretation and how we analyze and construe ambiguities, combining the insights of argumentation theory and text linguistics. Research results show that in case of misunderstanding, the “best interpretation” is the less defeasible one according to contextual presumptions.


The Authors:


Write the cod from the picture: