For a reconceptualization of argumentation in the light of the argumentative dimension of speech

The paper tries to explain the limited theoretical response to the notion of argumentative dimension (or indirect or oblique argumentation) as opposed to argumentative aim (or direct argumentation). In order to give a full account of the epistemological reasons of this situation, the paper draws on Plantin's recent Dictionary of argumentation, which is emblematic of the mainstream and defines argumentation only in relation to an explicit argumentative aim. The prevailing studies oppose argumentation and argumentativity, favoring the so-called limited conceptions based on argumentative markers and overestimating semasiological approaches at the expense of onomasiological approaches, which are, theoretically, complementary. Eventually, the paper provides an example of the descriptive and explicative rentability of the indirect approach to argumentation, based on an analysis of La Fontaine's fable "The Wolf and the Lamb". The articulation of the argumentative dimension and aim results in a redefinition of the notion of argumentation. Its purpose is neither to substitute one conception for another nor to dilute argumentation, but to elaborate a larger framework accounting for different language forms and strategies that allow for adherence to one's view and, at the same time, help problematize views that are illusorily transparent. The theoretical framework is built around a pragmatic and enunciative conception that analyzes the construction of interpretations based on the choice of referenciations and their interpretative actualization, where inferential logics, markers, abduction, argumentativity and viewpoints play a fundamental role.