The Evidential Basis of Linguistic Argumentation -- Editorial page -- Title page -- LCC data -- Table of contents -- Chapter 1. Introduction -- 1. The aim of the volume -- 2. On the state of the art -- 3. On the p-model -- 4. The structure of the book -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Part I. The methodological framework -- Chapter 2. The p-model of data and evidence in linguistics -- 1. The problem -- 2. A possible solution to (P)(a): The p-model -- 2.1 Introductory remarks -- 2.2 The uncertainty of information: Plausible statements -- 2.3 Obtaining new information from uncertain information: Plausible inferences -- 2.4 The p-context and the p-context-dependency of plausible inferences -- 2.5 Problems, their solution and their resolution -- 2.6 The problem solving process -- 2.6.1 Plausible argumentation -- 2.6.2 Problem-solving strategies -- 2.7 The solution to (P)(a) -- 3. A possible solution to (P)(b): The p-model's concepts of 'data' and 'evidence' -- 3.1 Data -- 3.2 Evidence -- 4. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Part II. Object-theoretical applications -- Chapter 3. The plausibility of approaches to syntactic alternation of Hungarian verbs -- Chapter 4. Methods and argumentation in historical linguistics -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Argumentation in historical linguistics -- 2.1 Quantitative and qualitative data in historical research -- 2.2 Frequency -- 2.3 Analogy -- 2.4 Summary -- 3. A case study -- 3.1 The starting p-context: Three accounts of the morphological development of the Catalan periphrastic perfective past -- 3.1.1 Colon (1978a, b) -- 3.1.2 Detges (2004) -- 3.1.3 Juge (2006) -- 3.2 Extension of the starting p-context: The historical present -- 3.3 Coordination of the extended p-context -- 4. Modification of the p-context and comparison of the rival solutions -- 5. Conclusions -- Acknowledgements.

Historical sources -- References -- Chapter 5. Hungarian verbs of natural phenomena with explicit and implicit subject arguments -- 1. Introduction: Aims and the organisation of the chapter -- 2. The rivalling approaches in the starting p-context: On the subjectlessness of verbs of natural phenomena in Hungarian -- 2.1 Magyar Értelmező Kéziszótár (Concise Explanatory Dictionary of Hungarian) (Pusztai 2003) -- 2.2 Magyar Grammatika (Hungarian grammar) (Keszler 2000) -- 2.3 Lexical-functional grammar (Komlósy 1994) -- 2.4 A generative syntactic analysis (Tóth 2001) -- 2.5 The evaluation of the starting p-context -- 3. Extending the starting p-context with new data -- 4. Extending the p-context with results of previous research into implicit arguments in Hungarian -- 4.1 Definition of implicit arguments and their occurrence in Hungarian -- 4.2 Compatible rivalling proposals -- 4.3 Non-compatible rivalling approaches -- 5. Modification of the p-context: The occurrence of verbs of natural phenomena with implicit subject arguments in Hungarian -- 6. The resolution of the starting p-problem in the modified p-context: The advantages of the analysis of verbs of natural phenomena with implicit and explicit subject arguments -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Chapter 6. The development of a taxonomy of verbal disagreements in the light of the p-model -- 1. Introduction: The goal and structure of the chapter -- 2. The starting p-context: Rival frameworks of disagreement -- 2.1 P-context version 1: Muntigl & Turnbull's model (1998) -- 2.2 P-context version 2: Rees-Miller's (1995, 2000) taxonomy -- 2.3 P-context version 3: Locher's (2004) model -- 2.4 P-context version 4: Bándli's (2009) framework -- 2.5 Evaluation of the starting p-context -- 3. Argumentation cycle 1 -- 3.1 Setting up a new p-context -- 3.2 The elaboration of the p-context.

3.2.1 Softened disagreement strategies -- 3.2.2 Neutral disagreement strategies -- 3.2.3 Strengthened disagreement strategies -- 3.2.4 Odd-one-outs -- 3.3 Comparison to other solutions -- 4. Argumentation cycle 2 -- 4.1 Setting up a new p-context -- 4.2 Elaboration of the p-context -- 4.2.1 Extension of the p-context: Research on the intuitions of native speakers -- 4.2.2 Coordination of the p-context -- 4.2.3 Modification of p-context -- Disagreement strategies: -- Pragmatic force modifiers: -- Mitigators -- Aggravators: -- 4.3 Comparison to other solutions -- 5. The final p-context -- 6. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Chapter 7. A case of disagreement -- 1. Introduction -- 2. The descriptive background -- 3. Setting up the p-context: The literature on agreeing RPVCs -- 3.1 The naysayers -- 3.2 The yea-sayers -- 3.3 The initial p-context -- 3.4 Further remarks on the initial p-context -- 4. Elaborating the p-context: The differential analysis of agreeing and non-agreeing RPVCs -- 4.1 The background to a new direction -- 4.2 Evidence 1: Binding data -- 4.3 Evidence 2: The verbless construction -- 4.4 Evidence 3: On the +human restriction -- 4.5 Interim conclusions -- 5. By way of summary: The final p-context -- Acknowledgments -- References -- Chapter 8. A plausibility-based model of shifted indexicals -- 1. Indexicals in the scope of sentential operators -- 2. Introducing plausibility considerations -- 3. A conflict between different sources of plausibility -- 4. A proposal for the resolution of the conflict -- 5. Conclusion -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Part III. Metatheoretical applications -- Chapter 9. Thought experiments and real experiments as converging data sources in pragmatics -- 1. Introduction -- 2. On the state of the art -- 2.1 Current views on thought experiments in science.

2.2 Points of departure for the solution of (P) -- 3. Case study 1: Thought experimental report in Searle (1969) -- 3.1 Setting up the starting p-context -- 3.2 The elaboration of the starting p-context -- 3.2.1 Subcycle 1: Analysis of Wittgenstein's thought experiment -- 3.2.2 The continuation of the argumentation cycle: Further elaboration of a rival hypothesis -- 3.3 The comparison of the solutions to the problem raised in (1) -- 3.4 The final p-context -- 4. Case study 2: Real experimental reports in Holtgraves & Ashley (2001) -- 4.1 Setting up the starting p-context -- 4.2 The elaboration of the starting p-context -- 4.2.1 Experiment 1 -- 4.2.2 Subcycle 1: Experiment 2 -- 4.2.3 Subcycle 2: Experiment 3 -- 4.2.4 Subcycle 4: Experiment 4 -- 4.3 The comparison with other solutions -- 4.4 The final p-context -- 5. The relationship between thought experiments and real experiments -- 5.1 Introductory remarks -- 5.2 Step 1: The continuity between thought experiments and real experiments -- 5.3 Step 2: Analogies between the thought experimental reports and experimental reports -- 5.4 Step 3: Analogies between real and thought experiments -- 5.4.1 The structure of real experiments -- 5.4.2 The structure of thought experiments -- 6. The solution to (P) -- Acknowledgements -- References -- Chapter 10. Data and the resolution of inconsistency in Optimality Theory -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Basic ideas of Optimality Theory -- 3. On (P)(a): Emergence of inconsistencies in Kager (1999)'s argumentation -- 3.1 Inconsistency No. 1: Satisfying a constraint leads to conflicts with another constraint -- 3.2 Inconsistency No. 2: A constraint ranking fails to rule out certain incorrect output forms belonging to the given input form.

3.3 Inconsistency No. 3: A constraint ranking fails to produce the correct output form in the case of input forms having a certain characteristic -- 3.4 Inconsistency No. 4: Constraint hierarchies contradict each other within a language -- 3.5 The solution to (P)(a) -- 4. On (P)(b): Analysis and evaluation of the strategies applied by Kager (1999) -- 4.1 Treatment of Inconsistency No. 1: Joint application of the Contrastive and the Combinative Strategies -- Step 3: Simulation of functioning of EVAL 2: The decision procedure -- Thought Experiment 2 -- Step 1: Simulation of the functioning of GEN -- 4.2 Treatment of Inconsistency No. 2: Modification of the hypothesis about the constraint hierarchy -- Step 2: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 1: Confronting constraints and output-candidates -- Step 3: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 2: The decision procedure -- Step 4: Confrontation of the outcome of the evaluation procedure with "linguistic data" -- Thought Experiment 3 -- Step 1: Simulation of the functioning of GEN -- Step 2: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 1: Confronting constraints and output-candidates -- Step 3: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 2: The decision procedure -- Step 4: Confrontation of the outcome of the evaluation procedure with "linguistic data" -- Thought Experiment 4 -- Step 1: Simulation of the functioning of GEN -- 4.3 Treatment of Inconsistency No. 3: Modification of the hypothesis regarding the constraint hierarchy -- Step 2: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 1: Confronting constraints and candidates -- Step 3: Simulation of the functioning of EVAL 2: The decision procedure -- Step 4: Confrontation of the outcome of the evaluation procedure with "linguistic data" -- Thought Experiment 5 -- Step 1: Simulation of the functioning of GEN.

Step 2: Simulation of functioning of EVAL 1: Confronting constraints and candidates.