Sifting argumentation theories for the interpreting scholar’s sake

Abstract

The present paper is mainly addressed to interpreting scholars who wish to focus their studies on the argumentative specificities of source texts (STs). Even though the argumentation analysis of STs for interpreting purposes is a barely charted sea, the practice is likely to become increasingly popular, in the light of its hermeneutical and contrastive functions providing invaluable insights into ST pragmatics (Marzocchi, 1998: 8), with significant implications for interpreter training (Marzocchi, 1994: 64; Marzocchi, 1998: 5). The application of argumentation concepts and methods to interpreting research, however, raises serious relevance issues. In this respect, the present paper proposes a sifting of the main argumentation theories so as to prevent researchers concentrating on irrelevant and potentially dispersive methodologies. It is therefore conceived as a theoretical overview, a preliminary non-exhaustive map of the most influential argumentation theories spreading across Europe and the world, aiming at guiding the interpreting scholar into the intricate but fascinating “wood” of argumentation studies.