Steve Oswald
PhD, Titular Professor (since 2024)
Senior Researcher
Department of English
MIS 09 bu. 1.02
Av. de Rome 2
1700 Fribourg
Av. de Rome 2
1700 Fribourg
MIS 09, 1.02
Thursday: 15:00-16:00
Thursday: 15:00-16:00
Research and publications
-
Publications (ORCID)
93 publications
Quand dire, c'est influencer. Psychologie de la persuasion
Zufferey, Sandrine and Oswald, Steve and Gygax, Pascal (Auxerre: Editions Sciences Humaines, 2025), ISBN: 9782361069391 | BookPragmatics and Argumentation
Steve Oswald, ed. by Oswald,Steve (Mdpi AG, 2023), ISBN: 9783036589121 | BookPragmatics and Argumentation: Special Issue Reprint
Steve Oswald (2023) | BookThe Pandemic of Argumentation
Steve Oswald, ed. by Steve Oswald and Marcin Lewinski and Sara Greco and Serena Villata (Springer International Publishing, 2022), ISBN: 9783030910167 | BookRhétorique et cognition . Rhetoric and Cognition: Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies
Thierry Herman, Steve Oswald, ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald (Peter Lang AG, Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften, 2014) | BookRhétorique et cognition. Perspectives théoriques et stratégies persuasives / Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies
Herman, Thierry and Oswald, Steve (Sciences pour la communication, ) | Book -
Research projects
10006525 - Deniability in ARgumentation and LINGuistics (DARLING)
Status: OngoingStart 01.01.2026 End 31.12.2029 Funding SNSF Open project sheet Rationale. Deniability is often seen as a threat to deliberative democracy, as it interferes with the accountability of political actors; in denying their statements or their actions, they may indeed avoid blame, escape responsibility and remain reputationally unharmed (Bovens et al., 1999; Hansson, 2019; Moonen & Pap, 2024; Strayhorn, 2019). While linguistic pragmatic accounts approach deniability in terms of the type of meaning that is denied, and thus through the lens of the attribution of speaker commitment (Bonalumi et al., 2024; Elder, 2024; Mazzarella et al., 2018; Morency et al., 2008), no study has investigated the argumentative dimension of denials, which can be taken to articulate a standpoint (“I did not say/mean P”) with a reason that justifies it (“I actually said/meant Q”). DARLING adopts an argumentative conception of deniability and investigates (i) its linguistic and pragmatic expression, (ii) its rhetorical effects, as mediated by what is denied and how it is denied, and (iii) the normative perception of denials as parts of argumentative sequences of moves together with their distribution in existing datasets. The project is interdisciplinary, as it combines corpus linguistic methods for the annotation of large datasets with experimental methods meant to document rhetorical effects and normative judgements on denials at the pragmatic, rhetorical and dialectical level. Objectives. DARLING incorporates two strands of research, each with its specific objectives. Strand 1 (corpus analysis) aims (i) to develop a complete account of deniability in natural discourse that considers its linguistic, rhetorical-argumentative and dialectical features, and (ii) to produce a full-fledged annotated dataset comprising two distinct sources (political and legal discourse) for linguistic and argumentative properties of denials in natural discourse. Strand 2 (experimental studies) will (iii) develop an empirically justified inventory of rhetorical effects of different deniability types and pragmatic formulations, while (iv) supplying an account of normative perceptions of different dialectical profiles of deniability in argumentative discourse. Overall, DARLING seeks to (v) develop a data-driven and language user-driven account of deniability to better understand its strategic (evasive/deceptive) use in political and legal public discourse. These objectives contribute both to fundamental research in the three disciplines of the project (argumentation theory, corpus linguistics and pragmatics) and to critical literacy efforts, as its results will be available for integration in relevant defensive communication designs for public participation and deliberation. In doing so, DARLING is the first research project to combine corpus and experimental methods to investigate a pragmatic and argumentative communicative phenomenon in terms of its linguistic properties, its rhetorical effects, and its behaviour in different dialectical sequences of argumentative moves. Research approach. Strand 1 will rely on corpus methods for manual annotation of the DARLING dataset, which has two sources: political and legal discourse. This strand will develop a theoretical account of the linguistic and pragmatic resources used by speakers to deny, while supplying annotation guidelines at three levels of analysis (linguistic, argumentative, and dialectical) and describing distribution and frequencies of denial types and patterns in the dataset. Strand 2 will adopt experimental methods in pragmatics and manipulate types of meaning, types of denial as independent variables to measure rhetorical effects in connection with plausibility, trustworthiness, and acceptability. Results will yield a language user-driven account of the rhetorical and dialectical profiles of deniability, which will be compared to the data-driven account yielded in Strand 1 to gather evidence on whether people perform denials according to their normative perceptions. Argumentation & Langage 2024 'Pragmatique et Argumentation'
Status: CompletedStart 01.05.2024 End 31.07.2024 Funding SNSF Open project sheet The fourth edition of the international conference 'Argumentation and Language' (ARGAGE 2024) runs under the special theme 'Pragmatics and Argumentation'. It is primarily aimed at researchers in language and communication sciences. It also welcomes contributions from other disciplines, with the understanding that the description of the linguistic functioning of argumentation significantly permeates their research. The contributions presented in this conference fall within one or more of the following areas: 1) Speech acts in argumentation, 2) Pragmatic inference in argumentation and rhetoric, 3) Semantic and pragmatic meaning-making resources in argumentation, and 4) Conversational dynamics of argumentation. AMoRe - Argumentative Model of Rephrase: Pragmatic and Rhetorical Approach
Status: OngoingStart 01.01.2022 End 31.03.2026 Funding SNSF Open project sheet SCIENTIFIC GOALS. This project investigates pragmatic and rhetorical aspects of the use of rephrase in argumentative discourse. Unlike the study of paraphrase, which has restricted its scope to the syntactic and semantic dimensions involved in producing a ‘similar but different’ version of what was previously said, the study of rephrase will here tackle the forms, functions and benefits of rephrase that are relevant from an argumentative point of view. The underlying assumption we explore and document in project AMoRe lies in the idea that rephrase is crucially not mere paraphrase. Specifically, this project will engage with the following three research questions: (RQ1) on which linguistic and discursive resources (from locutions to illocutions) does rephrase draw in argumentative exchanges? (RQ2) how are the different perlocutionary effects of rephrase connected to the use of specific locutions and illocutions displayed in argumentatively relevant instances of rephrase? (RQ3) how can linguistic evidence fuel empirical research designs meant to measure perlocutionary effects of rephrase, and how may the latter return reliable and useful feedback to support our theoretical efforts towards a deeper understanding of the linguistic and pragmatic structures of rephrase? In so doing, AMoRe importantly fills (i) descriptive gaps, by improving our knowledge of this phenomenon (the ‘what’ question), (ii) explanatory gaps, by illuminating the circumstances in which its effects can be observed (the ‘why’ question), and (iii) epistemological gaps, by supplying the description of rigorous and original methodological protocol that convincingly connect the study of locutions with that of illocutions and perlocutions (the ‘how’ question). OUTPUT. The project will deliver: (i) an annotation scheme and guidelines allowing to map dialogical arguments with rephrase structures; (ii) publicly available corpora of annotated rephrase types and structures; (iii) an inventory of propositional, stylistic, illocutionary and dialogical patterns associated with the use of rephrase to be published through a series of papers highlighting philosophical, linguistic and computational aspects; (iv) a methodological protocol allowing the systematic combination of linguistic and cognitive evidence which grounds our novel pragma-rhetorical account; (v) a fully-fledged pragma-rhetorical model of rephrase which integrates all aspects investigated in this project. METHODOLOGY. To ensure a sustainable and far-reaching scientific contribution, AMoRe draws on four different methodological approaches. (i) As our general philosophical framework, we adopt Speech act theory (Austin 1962, Searle 1969) and draw on its fundamental notions of locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act to construe the argumentatively relevant phenomenon of rephrase. (ii) To conduct our analysis of linguistic patterns, we use Inference anchoring theory (Budzynska & Reed 2011), as the latter supplies the analytical apparatus required to conceptualise the pragmatic import of rephrase into argumentative structures, given its ability to connect SAT and formal dialogue systems. (iii) The empirical collection of our linguistic evidence for uses of rephrase will be conducted according to a bottom-up methodology supplying a reliable procedure to construct, annotate and analyse large spans of text with relevant and cutting-edge metrics and visualisation tools. (iv) We will collect cognitive evidence for rhetorical effects of rephrase in argumentation through a crowdsourced-based methodology, which will allow us to quantitatively record judgements on various measures related to perlocutionary effects. IMPACT. Along with its pragma-rhetorical model of the use of rephrase in argumentation, AMoRe will accordingly deliver a valuable epistemological contribution to the philosophy of argumentation – and to the philosophy of language more broadly. Indeed, this project will demonstrate how the integration of these four methodological strands into a coherent model adds high value to current research at the interface of pragmatics and argumentation theory. By documenting a fully functional research paradigm able to account for argumentatively and pragmatically relevant phenomena in novel and exhaustive ways, AMoRe therefore stands to make an unprecedented contribution to the philosophical study of language practices. Implicit Meaning in Argumentation: Functions, Usages and Norms (IMAFUN)
Status: CompletedStart 01.01.2021 End 28.02.2025 Funding SNSF Open project sheet Background and rationale. During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump made a habit of uttering disparaging and even legally reprehensible public statements. Interestingly, these messages were all plausibly deniable – and Trump often did deny having meant them. For instance, he was accused of (i) insinuating, after the first Republican primary debate, that the moderator’s (Megyn Kelly) alleged aggressiveness towards him was due to the fact that she was menstruating, and (ii) inciting murder on his Democrat rival, Hillary Clinton, by pondering whether “2nd amendment people” could “do something” to prevent her from being elected. These messages shared two properties: they (i) fulfilled an argumentative function of support that was (ii) implicitly expressed, in this case through insinuation. These messages participate to a form of democratic deficit: while their sheer presence is controverted (since they are deniable), they distract attention from main issues and support sneaky forms of misinformation. In other words, their rhetorical appeal may facilitate epistemic deficits which, in the public sphere, are themselves likely to generate democratic deficits by impacting norms of argumentation pertinent to message acceptability and equality among speakers. This project adopts a pragmatic perspective on meaning to investigate the rhetorical potential of implicit messages and its impact on linguistic norms of public argument. To do so, it relies on experimental methodologies. Overall objectives. In terms of fundamental research, the project contributes to the cognitive and linguistic turn in argumentation scholarship by experimentally documenting how different types of implicit meaning can be used to trigger a range of rhetorical effects. From a critical literacy perspective, the project sheds light on how linguistic and pragmatic norms of public argument can be violated and makes its results available for integration in relevant defensive communication designs for public deliberation. In terms of networking, the project capitalises on the collaboration of Swiss scholars (vice-chair and substitute MC member) and European colleagues in key positions (Action chair and WG2 leaders) to both strengthen Switzerland’s participation to European research networks and benefit from the networking COST instruments. Specific aims. The project seeks to (i) map types and functions of implicit meaning in argumentative discourse, and (ii) characterise types of rhetorical effects from a pragmatic vantage point. Through experimental designs, the project will furthermore investigate (iii) how different types of implicit meaning are conducive to different types of rhetorical effects and (iv) provide insights on how implicit meaning – and its problematic uses – can affect norms of public argument. Methods. The experimental studies planned in this project implement psycholinguistic experimental research methods by measuring the effect of independent discourse variables on different evaluative responses. Expected results. We expect to provide a detailed, experimentally validated, account of how implicitness can be exploited in public argument to fulfil different problematic rhetorical purposes at odds with linguistic and pragmatic norms of public argument. We also anticipate in particular that (i) the use of implicit meaning makes certain rhetorical effects more likely to arise than the use of non-implicit meaning and that (ii) among types of implicit covert speech acts, insinuation and dogwhistles – which allow for denial and de-committing strategies – are particularly well-suited to affect speaker ethos (their perceived image). Impact. In terms of research impact, the project will confirm the usefulness of an experimental approach to deepen our understanding of the role of implicit meaning in the rhetorical success of arguments. In terms of pedagogical impact, the project will cohere with 2 of the main long-term impacts of the COST Action: by providing an account of how implicit meaning can be strategically exploited in public deliberation, it will inform the design of effective strategies meant to counter its nefarious effects. These, in turn, can be disseminated as part of the COST Action deliverables to help citizens critically identify fallacious argumentation and populist rhetoric in view of improving the quality of their decisions. European Network for Argumentation and Public Policy Analysis (APPLY)
Status: Completed2nd European Conference on Argumentation (ECA2017)
Status: CompletedStart 01.06.2017 End 31.08.2017 Funding SNSF Open project sheet The European Conference on Argumentation (ECA) is a pan-European initiative launched in 2013 aiming to consolidate and advance various streaks of research into argumentation and reasoning. ECA’s chief goal is to organise on a biennial basis a major conference that provides an opportunity for exchanging research results and networking in all areas related to the study of argumentation: linguistics, philosophy, communication, discourse analysis, computer science, psychology, cognitive studies, legal theory, etc. We are dedicated to work in synergy with other major events – such as the conferences organised by the International Society for the Study of Argumentation and the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation – by following their interdisciplinary spirit and avoiding schedule overlaps. As a distinguishing feature, ECA events offer a mix of plenary keynote sessions, thematic symposia, long papers with assigned commentators, and regular papers. ECA is organised every other year at a different European location. The 1st edition took place in Lisbon, Portugal in 2015 and was hosted by the ArgLab, Institute of Philosophy (IFILNOVA), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (New University of Lisbon). While based in Europe, ECA involves and further encourages participation from argumentation scholars all over the world. The organisation of the 2nd edition of ECA has been awarded to the English Domain at the University of Fribourg, Switzerland. Each meeting results in the publication of conference proceedings (with College Publication Publishers, London) and may in addition lead to a dedicated selection of papers as a special journal issue or a collective volume. Argumentation & Langage. Marqueurs linguistiques, processus discursifs, opérations cognitives
Status: Completed