Abstract
This paper builds a nine-step method for determining whether a straw man fallacy has been committed in a given case or not, by starting with some relatively easy textbook cases and moving to more realistic and harder cases. The paper shows how the type of argument associated with the fallacy can be proved to be a fallacy in a normative argumentation model, and then moves on to the practical task of building a hands-on method for applying the model to real examples of argumentation. Insights from linguistic pragmatics are used to distinguish the different pragmatic processes involved in reconstructing what is said and what is meant by an utterance, and to differentiate strong and weak commitments. In particular, the process of interpretation is analyzed in terms of an abductive pattern of reasoning, based on co-textual and contextual information, and assessable through the instruments of argumentation theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
The first article for The Economist can be found here: http://www.economist.com/news/business/21641257-rules-road-internet-will-always-be-work-progress-be-continued. The second one can be found here: http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21641201-why-network-neutrality-such-intractable-problemand-how-solve-it-gordian-net
References
Aikin, S. F., & Casey, J. (2011). Straw Men, Weak Men, and Hollow Men. Argumentation, 25(1), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y
Bezuidenhout, A. (1997). Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind, 106(423), 375–409. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375
Bizer, G., Kozak, S., & Holterman, L. A. (2009). The persuasiveness of the straw man rhetorical technique. Social Influence, 4(3), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510802598152
Capone, A. (2009). Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 55–83. https://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.003
Capone, A. (2012). Indirect reports as language games. Pragmatics & Cognition, 20(3), 593–613. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.20.3.07cap
Capone, A. (2013). The pragmatics of indirect reports and slurring. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics (pp. 153–183). Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01014-4_6
Carston, R. (1988). Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In R. Kempson (Ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, (pp. 155–181). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: the pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R. (1990). Quotations as Demonstrations. Language, 66(4), 764. https://doi.org/10.2307/414729
Freeman, J. (1998). Thinking Logically (Prentice H). Englewood Cliffs.
Govier, T. (1992). A Practical Study of Argument. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
Hurley, P. (2003). A concise introduction to logic. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Ifantidou, E. (2001). Evidentials and Relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ikeo, R. (2012). Misleading speech report in the media with a special reference to an Australian defamation case. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1183–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.003
Johnson, R., & Blair, A. (1983). Logical self-defence. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Lascarides, A., Copestake, A., & Briscoe, T. (1996). Ambiguity and Coherence. Journal of Semantics, 13, 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/13.1.41
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Lewiński, M., & Oswald, S. (2013). When and how do we deal with straw men? A normative and cognitive pragmatic account. Journal of Pragmatics, 59, 164–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001
Macagno, F. (2016). Reporting and Interpreting Intentions in Defamation Law. In A. Capone, F. Kiefer, & F. Lo Piparo (Eds.), Indirect Reports and Pragmatics (pp. 593–619). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8
Macagno, F. (2017). Defaults and inferences in interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics, 117, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.06.005
Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation, 30(4), 399–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-015-9347-5
Macagno, F., & Damele, G. (2013). The Dialogical Force of Implicit Premises. Presumptions in Enthymemes. Informal Logic, 33(3), 361. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i3.3679
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2011). Quotations and Presumptions-Dialogical Effects of Misquotations. Informal Logic, 31(1), 27–55.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2013). Implicatures as forms of argument. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on pragmatics and philosophy (pp. 203–225). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2017). Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. The Pragmatics of Quotation and Reporting. Amsterdam: Springer.
Moeschler, J. (2012). Conversational and conventional implicatures. In H.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Cognitive Pragmatics (pp. 407--434). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Moeschler, J. (2013). Is a speaker-based pragmatics possible? Or how can a hearer infer a speaker’s commitment? Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019
Pollock, J. (1995). Cognitive Carpentry. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Prakken, H. (2010). An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argument & Computation, 1(2), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19462160903564592
Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. F. (2006). Two forms of the Straw Man. Argumentation, 20(3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8
Taylor, A. J. P. (1961). How to Quote: Exercises for Beginners. Encounter, 71–73.
Trevor-Roper, H. (1961). A Reply. Encounter, 73–74.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1989). Informal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (2003). Defining conditional relevance using linked arguments and argumentation schemes: a commentary on professor Callen’s article, rationality and relevancy: conditional relevancy and constrained resources. Michigan State Law Review, 4(4), 1305–1314.
Walton, D. (2004). Relevance in argumentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.
Walton, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600187
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation, 24(3), 283–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9157-8
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.021
Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was funded by Insight Grant 435-2012-0104 from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and by the Investigador FCT Grant no. IF/00945/2013 from the Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia of Portugal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Walton, D., Macagno, F. (2019). Diagnosing Misattribution of Commitments: A Normative and Pragmatic Model of for Assessing Straw Man. In: Capone, A., Carapezza, M., Lo Piparo, F. (eds) Further Advances in Pragmatics and Philosophy: Part 2 Theories and Applications. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 20. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00973-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00972-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00973-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)