This chapter defends a cognitive-pragmatic take on rhetorical effectiveness by hypothesising that information-selection mechanisms at play in the interpretation of verbal stimuli positively influence the outcome of subsequent argumentative evaluation. Moreover, this chapter also shows that relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995) is ideally well equipped to develop this assumption. Indeed, this chapter argues that the inclusion of a cognitive pragmatic component in a theory of argumentation can boost the explanatory power of existing accounts, which typically refrain from adopting the sort of cognitive insights offered by relevance theorists (cf. van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 74). Accordingly, an example from political discourse is discussed in this framework to illustrate its explanatory advantages.
2004Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Reasoning. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.
1996 “Fallacies and Heuristics.” In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 101–114. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
Levine, Timothy R., and Rachel K. Kim
2010 “Some Considerations for a New Theory of Deceptive Communication.” In The Interplay of Truth and Deception, ed. by Mark Knapp and Matthew McGlone, 16–34. New York: Routledge.
Lewiński, Marcin, and Steve Oswald
2013 “When and How Do We Deal with Straw Men? A Normative and Cognitive Pragmatic Account.”Journal of Pragmatics 59 (B): 164–177.
2013 “Constraining Context Selection: On the Pragmatic Inevitability of Manipulation.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (B): 190–199.
Manipulation et cognition: Un modèle pragmatique.” In Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald 69 88 Berne Peter Lang
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald
2009 “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2): 348–370.
2011 “Looking for Arguments.” Argumentation 26 (3): 305–324.
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2009 “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” In In Two Minds, ed. by Jonathan S.B.T. Evans and Keith Frankish, 149–170. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
2011 “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–74.
1996 “Argumentation Studies and Dual-process Models of Persuasion.” In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 61–76. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Oswald, Magrit, and Stefan Grosjean
2004 “Confirmation Bias.” In Cognitive Illusions. A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. by Rudiger Pohl, 79–96. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.
2010Pragmatics of Uncooperative and Manipulative Communication. PhD diss., University of Neuchâtel.
2011 “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814.
Oswald, Steve, and Christopher Hart
2013 “Trust Based on Bias: A Cognitive and Evolutionary Treatment of the Rhetorical Effectiveness of the Ad Verecundiam and Ad Populum Fallacies.” In
Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013
, ed. by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Oswald, Steve, and Marcin Lewiński
2014 “Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy.” In Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Berne: Peter Lang.
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca
2008 La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo
1986Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
1994 “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations.” In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by Lawrence A. Hirschfeld and Susan A. Gelman, 39–67. New York : Cambridge University Press.
2001 “In Defence of Massive Modularity.” In Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. by Emmanuel Dupoux, 47–57. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2005 “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context-sensitive?” In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, ed. by Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
1995Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria. Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson
2010 “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393.
2008The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2010 “Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are.” Informal Logic 30 (2): 159–184.
1960 “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12 (3): 129–140.
1966 “Reasoning.” In New Horizons in Psychology, ed. by Brian M. Foss, 106–137. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
2010 “Understanding and Believing.” Paper delivered at the
4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
2004 “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249–287.
1984Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.
Cited by 5 other publications
Oswald, Steve, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli & Andrea Rocci
2020. Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing. In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild [Argumentation Library, 35], ► pp. 41 ff.
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin
2018. Introduction. In Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations [Argumentation Library, 32], ► pp. 1 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 may 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.