Abstract
In this chapter, an argumentative approach to ambiguity and commitment attribution is advanced in order to address the problem of establishing the speaker’s commitments in case of ambiguity of his utterance. The goal is to analyze how a doubtful or potentially doubtful interpretation of an utterance can be supported dialectically by providing a dialectical mechanism for establishing which interpretation is the best one. Distinct types of ambiguity are distinguished by pointing out the subtle line between what is directly conveyed and what is left implicit. Our challenge is to develop an argumentative model for representing how it is possible to choose an interpretation over another and justify it in cases of ambiguity. The model that we propose is grounded on the notion of presumption. When an interpretation is challenged, the parties to the discussion need to support their interpretation based on reasons. We conceive these reasons as conclusions of a type of argument called “from best explanation,” which is based on the presumptions available in a given context. An interpretation can be based on various types of evidence leading to an interpretive conclusion through more general or specific presumptions. An interpretation is assessed by evaluating the defeasibility conditions of the presumptions on which it is based.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
President Clinton testifies before the Kenneth Starr grand jury to discuss his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Transcript. CNN.com . (21 September 1998). Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/icreport/segment2/index.html (Accessed on 24 October 2016).
- 2.
Jose Padilla’s Enemy Combatant Order Issued by President George W. Bush (9 June 2002). Findlaw. Retrived from http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/padilla/padillabush60902.html (Accessed on 20 April 2017).
- 3.
In relevance theory, the crucial importance of what we called above “pragmatic presumptions” or in the previous chapter “dialogue move” has been pointed out by developing the notion of “higher-level” (Wilson and Sperber 1993) or “higher-order” (Carston 2002b, p. 377) explicatures. Higher-level explicatures are representation of the propositional-attitude or speech-act descriptions of the illocutionary force. These higher-level explicatures can be prototypically associated with sentence forms, but are in fact the result of the conversational setting and the combination of presumptions of different kind, and affect the interpretation of the explicatures and implicatures.
References
Anscombre, J.-C., & Ducrot, O. (1983). L’argumentation dans la langue. Bruxelles: Pierre Mardaga.
Atlas, J. D. (1989). Philosophy without ambiguity: A logico-linguistic essay. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Atlas, J. D. (2005). Logic, meaning, and conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195133004.001.0001
Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 1–62). New York: Academic.
Bach, K. (2006). The top 10 misconceptions about implicature. In B. Birner & G. Ward (Eds.), Drawing the boundaries of meaning: Neo-Gricean studies in pragmatics and semantics in honor of Laurence R. Horn (pp. 21–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Bach, K. (2010). Impliciture vs Explicature: What’s the difference? In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication (pp. 126–137). Palgrave: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Bazzanella, C., & Damiano, R. (1999). The interactional handling of misunderstanding in everyday conversations. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(6), 817–836. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00058-7
Bell, D. M. (1997). Innuendo. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(1), 35–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)88001-0
Beyssade, C., & Marandin, J.-M. (2006). The speech act assignment problem revisited: Disentangling speaker’s commitment from speaker’s call on addressee. In O. Bonami & P. Cabredo Hofherr (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics (Vol. 6, pp. 37–68). Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Sorbonne.
Beyssade, C., & Marandin, J.-M. (2009). Commitment: une attitude dialogique. Langue Française, 162(2), 89. http://doi.org/10.3917/lf.162.0089
Bezuidenhout, A. (1997). Pragmatics, semantic undetermination and the referential/attributive distinction. Mind, 106(423), 375–409. http://doi.org/10.1093/mind/106.423.375
Blum-Kulka, S., & Weizman, E. (2014). Misunderstandings in political interviews. In J. House, G. Kasper, & S. Ross (Eds.), Misunderstandings in social life (pp. 107–128). London: Routledge.
Boulat, K. (2016). Hearer-oriented processes of strength assignment: A pragmatic model of commitment. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 29, 19–40. http://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.29.01bou
Burton-Roberts, N. (2010). Cancellation and intention. In S. Belen & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication. Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 138–155). New York: Palgrave.
Burton-Roberts, N. (2013). On Grice and cancellation. Journal of Pragmatics, 48(1), 17–28. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.008
Camp, E. (2006). Contextualism, metaphor and what is said. Mind and Language, 21(3), 280–309. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00280.x
Capone, A. (2005). Pragmemes (a study with reference to English and Italian). Journal of Pragmatics, 37(9), 1355–1371. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.01.013
Capone, A. (2009). Are explicatures cancellable? Toward a theory of the speaker’s intentionality. Intercultural Pragmatics, 6(1), 55–83. http://doi.org/10.1515/IPRG.2009.003
Capone, A. (2011). The attributive/referential distinction, pragmatics, modularity of mind and modularization. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 153–186. http://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2011.560827
Capone, A. (2013a). Explicatures are NOT cancellable. In A. Capone, F. Lo Piparo, & M. Carapezza (Eds.), Perspectives on linguistic pragmatics, perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology 2 (pp. 131–151). Cham: Springer.
Capone, A. (2013b). The role of pragmatics in (re)constructing the rational law-maker. Pragmatics & Cognition, 21(2), 399–414.
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. (2002a). Linguistic meaning, communicated meaning and cognitive pragmatics. Mind and Language, 17(1&2), 127–148. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00192
Carston, R. (2002b). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd..
Carston, R. (2004a). Explicature and semantics. In S. Davis & B. Gillon (Eds.), Semantics: A reader (pp. 817–845). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carston, R. (2004b). Relevance theory and the saying/implicating distinction. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 633–656). Oxford: Blackwell.
Carston, R. (2013). Legal texts and canons of construction: A view from current pragmatic theory. In M. Freeman & F. Smith (Eds.), Law and language: Current legal issues (Vol. 15, pp. 8–33). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clark, H. (1977). Inferences in comprehension. In D. LaBerge & J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (pp. 243–263). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Dascal, M. (1979). Conversational relevance. In A. Margalit (Ed.), Meaning and use (pp. 153–174). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Dascal, M. (1992). On the pragmatic structure of conversation. In H. Parret & J. Verschueren (Eds.), (on) Searle on conversation (pp. 35–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Dascal, M. (2003). Interpretation and understanding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Davis, W. (1998). Implicature: Intention, convention, and principle in the failure of Gricean theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deppermann, A. (2000). Semantic shifts in argumentative processes: A step beyond the “fallacy of equivocation.”. Argumentation, 14, 17–30. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007838727096
Franklin, M., & Bussel, D. (1983). The plaintiff’s burden in defamation: Awareness and falsity. William and Mary Law Review, 25, 825–889.
Gibbs, R. (1999). Intentions in the experience of meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (1985). Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today, 6(4), 699. http://doi.org/10.2307/1771962
Giora, R. (1988). On the informativeness requirement. Journal of Pragmatics, 12(5–6), 547–565. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(88)90048-3
Giora, R. (1997). Discourse coherence and theory of relevance: Stumbling blocks in search of a unified theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(1), 17–34. http://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(95)00065-8
Giora, R. (2003). On our mind. Salience, context, and figurative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001
Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Grosz, B., & Sidner, C. (1986). Attention, intentions, and the structure of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 12(3), 175–204.
Gundel, J. K., & Fretheim, T. (2004). Topic and focus. The Handbook of Pragmatics, 1974, 175–196. http://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756959.ch8
Hamblin, C. L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Haugh, M. (2015). Im/politeness implicatures. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Hobbs, J. R. (1979). Coherence and coreference. Cognitive Science, 3, 67–90. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0301_4
Horn, L. (2009). Implicature, truth, and meaning. International Review of Pragmatics, 1, 3–34.
Jacobs, S., & Jackson, S. (2006). Derailments of argumentation: It takes two to tango. In P. Houtlosser & A. van Rees (Eds.), Considering pragma-dialectics (pp. 121–133). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Jaszczolt, K. (1999). Discourse, beliefs and intentions. Oxford: Elsevier.
Karttunen, L. (1973). Presuppositions of compound sentences. Linguistic Inquiry, 4(2), 169–193.
Kecskes, I. (2008). Dueling contexts: A dynamic model of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(3), 385–406. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.12.004
Kecskes, I. (2010a). Situation-bound utterances as pragmatic acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2889–2897. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.008
Kecskes, I. (2010b). The paradox of communication: Socio-cognitive approach to pragmatics. Pragmatics and Society, 1(1), 50–73. http://doi.org/10.1075/ps.1.1.04kec
Kecskes, I. (2013). Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2015). Intracultural communication and intercultural communication: Are they different? International Review of Pragmatics, 7, 171–194. http://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-00702002
Kecskes, I., & Zhang, F. (2009). Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(2), 331–355. http://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.2.06kec
Keenan, E. (1973). Presupposition in natural logic. The Monist, 57(3), 344–370. http://doi.org/10.5840/monist197357314
Kissine, M. (2012). Sentences, utterances, and speech acts. In K. Allan & K. Jaszczolt (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 169–190). New York: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139022453.010
Lascarides, A., & Asher, N. (1993). Temporal interpretation, discourse relations and commonsense entailment. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 437–493. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986208
Levin, J., & Moore, J. (1977). Dialogue-games: Metacommunication structures for natural language interaction. Cognitive Science, 1(4), 395–420. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(77)80016-5
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Macagno, F. (2008). Dialectical relevance and dialogical context in walton’s pragmatic theory. Informal Logic, 28(2), 102. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v28i2.542
Macagno, F. (2011). The presumptions of meaning. Hamblin and equivocation. Informal Logic, 31(4), 367. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v31i4.3326
Macagno, F. (2014). Manipulating emotions. Value-based reasoning and emotive language. Argumentation & Advocacy, 51(2), 103–122.
Macagno, F. (2016a). Argument relevance and structure. Assessing and developing students’ uses of evidence. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 180–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.002
Macagno, F. (2016b). 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. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21395-8
Macagno, F., & Capone, A. (2016). Interpretative disputes, explicatures, and argumentative reasoning. Argumentation, 30(4), 399–422. http://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. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v33i3.3679
Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2014). Emotive language in argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139565776
Macagno, F., & Zavatta, B. (2014). Reconstructing metaphorical meaning. Argumentation, 28(4), 453–488. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-014-9329-z
Mann, W. (1988). Dialogue games: Conventions of human interaction. Argumentation, 2(4), 511–532. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00128990
Matsui, T. (1998). Assessing a scenario-based account of bridging reference assignment. In R. Carston & S. Uchida (Eds.), Relevance theory: Applications and implications (pp. 123–160). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
Mey, J. (2001). Pragmatics. An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mey, J. (2003). Context and (dis)ambiguity: A pragmatic view. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 331–347. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00139-X
Moeschler, J. (2002). Speech act theory and the analysis of conversation. In D. Vandervecken & S. Kubo (Eds.), Essays in speech act theory (pp. 239–261). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.11.019
Morency, P., Oswald, S., & de Saussure, L. (2008). Explicitness, implicitness and commitment attribution: A cognitive pragmatic approach. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 22, 197–219.
Patterson, D. (2004). Interpretation in law. San Diego Law Review, 42, 685–710.
Perry, J. (1998). Indexicals, contexts and unarticulated constituents. In A. Aliseda-Llera, R. Van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (Eds.), Computing natural language (pp. 1–11). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Recanati, F. (1987). Meaning and force : The pragmatics of performative utterances. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Recanati, F. (2002). No title. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(3), 299–345. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015267930510
Reinhart, T. (1981). Pragmatics and linguistics: An analysis of sentence topics in pragmatics and philosophy. Philosophica, 27(1), 53–94.
Rescher, N. (2006). Presumption and the practices of tentative cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511498848
Review, S. J. L. (1972). Perjury–lie by negative implication (United States v. Bronston). St John’s Law Review, 47(2), 306–312.
Ritchie, D. (2006). Context and connection in metaphor. New York: Palgrave.
Saka, P. (2007). How to think about meaning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Saul, J. M. (2002). Speaker meaning, what is said, and what is implicated. Nous, 36(2), 228–248. http://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0068.00369
Searle, J. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500006837
Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J., & Vanderveken, D. (2005). Speech acts and illocutionary logic. InLogic, thought and action (pp. 109–132). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Shuy, R. (2011). The language of perjury cases. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, M. (1985). Law and language: The role of pragmatics in statutory interpretation. University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 46, 373–420.
Soames, S. (2002). Beyond rigidity: The unfinished semantic agenda of naming and necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solan, L. (2002). The Clinton scandal: Some legal lessons from linguistics. In J. Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the legal process (pp. 180–195). New York: Palgrave.
Solan, L. (2004). Pernicious ambiguity in contracts and statutes. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 79, 859–888.
Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2012). The language of crime. In L. Solan & P. Tiersma (Eds.), The oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 340–353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sopinka, J., Lederman, S., & Bryant, A. (2009). The law of evidence in Canada. LexisNexis: Markham.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2(4), 447–457. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf00262951
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York: New York University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/0198237073.003.0003
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stevenson, C. (1937). The emotive meaning of ethical terms. Mind, XLVI(181), 14–31. http://doi.org/10.1093/mind/XLVI.181.14
Stevenson, C. (1944). Ethics and language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Thomason, R. (1990). Accommodation, meaning, and implicature: Interdisciplinary foundations for pragmatics. In P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions in communication (pp. 325–364). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Tiersma, P. (1990). The language of perjury: Literal truth, ambiguity, and the false statement requirement. Southern California Law Review, 63, 373–431.
van Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
van Laar, J. A. (2003). The dialectic of ambiguity. Groningen: Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Van Laar, J. A. (2001). Ambiguity in a dialectical perspective. Informal Logic, 21(3), 245–266. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v21i3.2248
Villafranco, J., Colbath, B., & Horvath, A. (2004). The lanham act defendant’s burden post-novartis. Antitrust Magazine, 18(3), 49–52.
von Fintel, K. (2008). What is presupposition accommodation, again? Philosophical Perspectives, 22(1), 137–170. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1520-8583.2008.00144.x
Walton, D. (1989). Informal logic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (1995). Argumentation schemes for presumptive reasoning. Mahwah: Routledge. http://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811160
Walton, D. (1996). Fallacies arising from ambiguity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Walton, D. (2006). Using conversation policies to solve problems of ambiguity in argumentation and artificial intelligence. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(1), 3–36. http://doi.org/10.1075/pc.14.1.03wal
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2007). Types of dialogue, dialectical relevance and textual congruity. Anthropology & Philosophy, 8(1–2), 101–119.
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2010). Wrenching from context: The manipulation of commitments. Argumentation, 24(3), 283–317. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-009-9157-8
Walton, D., & Macagno, F. (2016). Profiles of dialogue for relevance. Informal Logic, 36(4), 523. http://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i4.4586
Walton, D., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. New York: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511802034
Wilson, D. (2016). Relevance theory. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.37
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1993). Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2), 1–25.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Oxford: Blackwell. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.021
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Macagno, F., Walton, D. (2017). Establishing Commitments Between Ambiguity and Misquotation. In: Interpreting Straw Man Argumentation. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62545-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62544-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62545-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)