1887
Volume 9, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper, I elaborate on the cognitive pragmatic approaches of commitment attribution. I argue that non-propositional meanings (Sperber and Wilson 2015) play a role in the reconstruction of arguments (see Oswald 2016) and I underline that this constitutes a further argument in favor of a cognitive approach to the study of commitment attribution. I focus on an authentic example of a straw man fallacy consisting in (a) an implicit misattribution of commitments to the speaker with the form “Excuse me for having done p” and (b) a refutation of the attributed position by means of non-propositional effects (in this case, the refutation is implicitly conveyed through an ironical utterance). I conclude that non-propositional effects can serve as a criterion to distinguish a mere false attribution of commitments from a full-fledged straw man fallacy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00011.mul
2020-05-04
2020-10-01
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Boulat, Kira and Didier Maillat
    2017 “She said you said I saw it with my own eyes: a pragmatic account of commitment”. InFormal Models in the Study of Language, ed. byJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman, and Christopher Laenzlinger, 261–279. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_14
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_14 [Google Scholar]
  2. Carston, Robyn
    2002Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 “The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication.” International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1): 35–62. 10.1163/187731009X455839
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731009X455839 [Google Scholar]
  4. Grice, Herbert P.
    1957Meaning. The philosophical review66(3): 377–388. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  5. 1975 “Logic and Conversation”. InSyntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Hamblin, Charles
    1970Fallacies. London: Methuen.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Lewiński, Marcin and Steve Oswald
    2013 “When and how we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account.” Journal of Pragmatics, 59(B): 164–177. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  8. Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber
    2011 “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences”, 34(2): 57–74. 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2017The enigma of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/9780674977860
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860 [Google Scholar]
  10. Oswald, Steve
    2016 “Commitment attribution and the reconstruction of arguments.” InThe psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion, ed. ByFabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felleti, 17–32. London: College Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Oswald, Steve and Marcin Lewiński
    2014 “Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. InRhétorique et cognition: perspectives théoriques et strategies persuasives / Rhetoric and cognition: theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies, ed. byThierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak and James J. Lee
    2008 “The logic of indirect speech.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences105(3): 833–838. 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  13. Reboul, Anne
    2011 “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics, 13: 1–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2017Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  15. de Saussure, Louis
    2018 “The straw man fallacy as a prestige-gaining device.” InArgumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. bySteve Oswald, Thierry Herman, Jérôme Jacquin, 171–190. Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑73972‑4_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_8 [Google Scholar]
  16. de Saussure, Louis and Steve Oswald
    2009 “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste”. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 29: 215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey and Steve Oswald
    2019 “What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessing linguistic factors”. Journal of Pragmatics141: 1–15. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  18. Sperber, Dan
    1994 “Understanding verbal understanding.” InWhat is Intelligence?, ed. byJean Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Oliver Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson
    2010 “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind and Language25(4): 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1995Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd editionOxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 2008 “Relevance Theory.” InThe handbook of pragmatics, ed. byLaurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    2015 “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy15(2(44)): 117–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Walton, Douglas
    1996 “The straw man fallacy.” InLogic and argumentation, ed. byJohan van Benthem, Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman, 115–128. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Walton, Douglas and Erik Krabbe
    1995Commitment in dialogues. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Wharton, Tim
    2015 “That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited”. Lingua, 175: 20–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Wharton, Tim and Louis de Saussure
    . to appear. “The pragmatics of emotion.” InHandbook on Language and Emotion ed. by Gesine L. Schiewer, Jeanette Altarriba and Bee Chin Ng. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Wilson, Deirdre
    2003 “Relevance and lexical pragmatics.” Italian Journal of Linguistics15: 273–292.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Walton, Douglas
    1998Ad hominem arguments. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00011.mul
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.00011.mul
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error