This article is set within the general frame of the discussion on the reconstruction of implicit premises in argumentation. On the backdrop of the theoretical framework provided by the Argumentum Model of Topics (AMT), we set out to propose a hypothesis on how the endoxa of a given argument scheme are derived from certain cognitive frames activated by the use of linguistic units, which we call keywords. Implicit premises in argumentation are described according to the distinction between procedural and material starting points: the former refer to the inferential component of the argument scheme; the latter, to the premises of a contextual nature, which allow the argument scheme to become relevant for the interlocutors in a specific dialogical context. Our proposal is focused on the reconstruction of the endoxical part of the material starting points. The proposed hypothesis on the linguistic activation of endoxa is illustrated through the analysis of a case of political debate. The theoretical hypothesis proposed in the article, set at the crossroads between the study of argumentation theory and linguistic semantics, is a first step towards the understanding of the connection between the linguistic and the inferential level in the structure of argument schemes.
- argument scheme
- implicit premise