Cover not available
Article published In:
Argumentation and Meaning: Semantic and pragmatic reflexions
Edited by Steve Oswald, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli and Andrea Rocci
[Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1] 2020
► pp. 148–166

Non-propositional meanings and commitment attribution

More arguments in favor of a cognitive approach

| University of Neuchâtel

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.

Keywords: commitment attribution, straw man fallacy, non-propositional meanings, reconstruction of arguments, cognitive pragmatics
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
Published online: 4 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.00011.mul
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “The explicit/implicit distinction in pragmatics and the limits of explicit communication.” International Review of Pragmatics, 1(1): 35–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Herbert P.
1957 Meaning. The philosophical review 66(3): 377–388. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Hamblin, Charles
1970 Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo and Dan Sperber
2011 “Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and brain sciences”, 34(2): 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The enigma of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Reboul, Anne
2011 “A relevance-theoretic account of the evolution of implicit communication.” Studies in Pragmatics, 131: 1–19.Google Scholar
2017 Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
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
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1994 “Understanding verbal understanding.” In What is Intelligence?, ed. by Jean Khalfa, 179–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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 logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson
1986 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edition Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
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
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
2015 “Beyond speaker’s meaning.” Croatian Journal of Philosophy 15(2(44)): 117–149.Google Scholar
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
Walton, Douglas and Erik Krabbe
1995 Commitment in dialogues. Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Wharton, Tim
2015 “That bloody so-and-so has retired: Expressives revisited”. Lingua, 1751: 20–35.Google Scholar
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
Walton, Douglas
1998 Ad hominem arguments. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Stevens, Katharina
2021. Fooling the Victim: Of Straw Men and Those Who Fall for Them. Philosophy & Rhetoric 54:2 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 march 2023. 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.