Non-propositional meanings and commitment attribution
More arguments in favor of a cognitive approach
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.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Cognitive-pragmatic accounts of commitment attribution
- 2.1The explicit-implicit divide of linguistic communication
- 2.2Searching for relevance
- 2.3Spotting misattributions of commitments: The case of straw man fallacies
- 3.Commitment cues beyond propositional meanings
- 3.1Defining non-propositional meanings
- 3.2Refuting a position by non-propositional means: An authentic case of straw man fallacy
- 4.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (29)
References
Boulat, Kira and Didier Maillat. 2017. “She said you said I saw it with my own eyes: a pragmatic account of commitment”. In Formal Models in the Study of Language, ed. by Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman, and Christopher Laenzlinger, 261–279. Cham: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn. 2002. Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carston, Robyn. 2009. “The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication.” International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1): 35–62. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, Herbert P. 1957. Meaning. The philosophical review 66(3): 377–388. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grice, Herbert P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamblin, Charles. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber. 2011. “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences”, 34(2): 57–74. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber. 2017. The enigma of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oswald, Steve. 2016. “Commitment attribution and the reconstruction of arguments.” In The psychology of argument: Cognitive approaches to argumentation and persuasion, ed. By Fabio Paglieri, Laura Bonelli, and Silvia Felleti, 17–32. London: College Publications.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Oswald, Steve and Marcin Lewiński. 2014. “Pragmatics, cognitive heuristics and the straw man fallacy. In Rhétorique et cognition: perspectives théoriques et strategies persuasives / Rhetoric and cognition: theoretical perspectives and persuasive strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Bern: Peter Lang.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Nowak and James J. Lee. 2008. “The logic of indirect speech.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(3): 833–838. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reboul, Anne. 2011. “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics, 131: 1–19.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reboul, Anne. 2017. Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Saussure, Louis. 2018. “The straw man fallacy as a prestige-gaining device.” In Argumentation and Language. Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations, ed. by Steve Oswald, Thierry Herman, Jérôme Jacquin, 171–190. Springer, Cham. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Saussure, Louis and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Argumentation et engagement du locuteur: pour un point de vue subjectiviste”. Nouveaux cahiers de linguistique française, 291: 215–243.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey and Steve Oswald. 2019. “What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments assessing linguistic factors”. Journal of Pragmatics 1411: 1–15. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan. 1994. “Understanding verbal understanding.” In What is Intelligence?, ed. by Jean Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Oliver Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind and Language 25(4): 359–393. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 2008. “Relevance Theory.” In The handbook of pragmatics, ed. by Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward, 607–632. New York: John Wiley and Sons.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 2015. “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(2(44)): 117–149.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 1996. “The straw man fallacy.” In Logic and argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst and Frank Veltman, 115–128. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dialogues. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim. 2015. “That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited”. Lingua, 1751: 20–35.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wharton, Tim and Louis de Saussure. to appear. “The pragmatics of emotion.” In Handbook on Language and Emotion, ed. by Gesine L. Schiewer, Jeanette Altarriba and Bee Chin Ng. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Wilson, Deirdre. 2003. “Relevance and lexical pragmatics.” Italian Journal of Linguistics 151: 273–292.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Walton, Douglas. 1998. Ad hominem arguments. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Stevens, Katharina
2021.
Fooling the Victim: Of Straw Men and Those Who Fall for Them.
Philosophy & Rhetoric 54:2
► pp. 109 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.