ABSTRACT
In argumentative discourse it is quite common for premises or standpoints to be left unexpressed. In evaluating argumentation, unexpressed elements can be very important, particularly when evaluating the soundness of the argumentation. If speakers or writers do not explicitly express their standpoint, as a rule they expect the listener or reader to be able to infer this standpoint from the arguments put forward. Speakers or writers who comply with the Communication Principle will normally try to follow the communication rules. All communication rules can be exploited to convey something indirectly, and violations of different communication rules lead to different variants of indirectness. In other words, if the non-specific interpretation entails attributing to the arguer a violation of the communication rules, then one should check whether the context also allows – as in some well-defined contexts – another, more specific interpretation that does not entail a violation.
