Abstracts
Abstract
Argumentation, as a specific type of speech act, involves an exchange of meaning among its participants, yielding illocutionary effects consisting in the production of changes in participants’ dialectical entitlements and obligations. The production of these illocutionary effects hinges on the joint construction by the speaker and the interlocutor of the meaning of the speaker’s utterance. However, the speaker’s meaning does not always coincide with the interlocutor’s interpretation. This paper argues that this gap has crucial implications for the evaluation of argumentation. Specifically, it explores the consequences of this gap in cases involving commitment attributions, taking the straw man fallacy as a case of study.
Keywords:
- commitment attribution,
- joint meaning,
- normative effects,
- speech act of arguing,
- straw man fallacy
Résumé
L'argumentation, en tant qu'acte de langage spécifique, implique un échange de sens entre ses participants, produisant des effets illocutoires qui se traduisent par des modifications de leurs droits et obligations dialectiques. La production de ces effets repose sur la construction conjointe, par le locuteur et l'interlocuteur, du sens de l'énoncé du locuteur. Or, le sens voulu par le locuteur ne coïncide pas toujours avec l'interprétation de l'interlocuteur. Cet article soutient que cet écart a des implications cruciales pour l'évaluation de l'argumentation. Plus précisément, il explore les conséquences de cet écart dans les cas d'attribution d'engagement, en prenant pour exemple le sophisme de l'homme de paille.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Aikin, Scott F. and John Casey. 2011. Straw men, weak men, and hollow men. Argumentation 25(1): 87–105.10.1007/s10503-010-9199-y Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Aikin, Scott F. and John Casey. 2022. Straw man arguments: A study in fallacy theory. London: Bloomsbury.10.5040/9781350065031 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Austin, John L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Ayala, Saray. 2016. Speech affordances: A structural take on how much we can do with our words. European Journal of Philoso-phy 24(4): 879–891.10.1111/ejop.12186 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Bermejo-Luque, L. 2011. Giving reasons: A linguistic-pragmatic approach to argumentation theory. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1761-9 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Caponetto, Laura and Paolo Labinaz. 2023. Marina Sbisà’s deon-tic approach to speech actions. In Sbisà on speech as action, eds. Laura Caponetto and Paolo Labinaz, 1–26. Cham: Spring-er International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-22528-4_1 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Carassa, Antonella and Marco Colombetti. 2009. Joint meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 41(9): 1837–1854.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.03.005 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Corredor, Cristina. 2021. Illocutionary performance and objective assessment in the speech act of arguing. Informal Logic 41(3): 453–483.10.22329/il.v41i3.6854 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Corredor, Cristina. 2023. Agreeing on a norm: What sort of speech act? Topoi 42(2): 495–507.10.1007/s11245-022-09876-0 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- El Confidencial. 2022, September. Vox and Cs call for Irene Montero’s resignation over her statements on sexual educa-tion. URL accessed [22/09/2022]: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/2022-09-22/abascal-dimension-montero-igualdad-ninos_3494791/.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- El Diario. 2022, September. The far-right manipulates Irene Montero’s words about young people and pregnancy to accuse her of admitting to pedophilia. URL accessed [22/09/2022]: https://www.eldiario.es/rastreador/ultraderecha-manipula-palabras-irene-montero-jovenes-embarazo-acusarla-admitir-pedofilia_132_9560260.html.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Speech-acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht/Berlin: Foris; Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846089 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, Frans H. van and Rob Grootendorst. 1987. Fallacies in a pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation 1: 283–301.10.1007/BF00136779 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Jacobs, Curtis Scott and Sally Jackson. 1993. Reconstructing argumentative dis-course. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Eemeren, F. H. van, Peter Houtlosser, Constanza Ihnen and Marcin Lewiński. 2010. Contextual considerations in the eval-uation of argumentation. In Dialectics, dialogue and argumen-tation: An examination of Douglas Walton’s theories of rea-soning and argument, eds. Chris Reed and Christopher W. Tindale, 115–132. London: College Publications.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Govier, Trudy 1992. A practical study of argument. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hamblin, Charles. 1970. Fallacies. London: Methuen.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Haro Marchal, A. 2023. Argumentation as a speech act: Two levels of analysis. Topoi 42(2): 481–494.10.1007/s11245-023-09900-x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Haro Marchal, A. 2025. It’s a two-way street: The joint meaning of illocutionary acts of arguing. Informal Logic 45(2), 229–257.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Hundleby, Catherine. 2013. Aggression, politeness, and abstract adversaries. Informal Logic 33(2): 238–262.10.22329/il.v33i2.3895 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Johnson, Ralph and Anthony Blair. 1983. Logical self-defence (2nd ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Kukla, Rebecca. 2014. Performative force, convention, and dis-cursive injustice. Hypatia 29(2): 440–457.10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01316.x Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Laar, Jan Albert van. 2008. Room for maneuver when raising critical doubt. Philosophy and Rhetoric 41(3): 195–211.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- 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: 164–177.10.1016/j.pragma.2013.05.001 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Oswald, Steve. 2023. Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 203: 144–156.10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Público. 2023, March. The Supreme Court once again rejects Vox’s complaint against Irene Montero for her words on sex education. URL accessed [24/03/2023]: https://www.publico.es/politica/supremo-rechaza-nuevo-denuncia-vox-irene-montero-palabras-educacion-sexual.html.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Saussure, Louis de. 2018. The straw man fallacy as a prestige-gaining device. In Argumentation and language: Linguistic, cognitive and discursive explorations, eds. S. Oswald, T. Her-man and J. Jacquin, 171–190. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-73972-4_8 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Sbisà, Marina. 2006. Communicating citizenship in verbal inter-action: Principles of a speech act oriented discourse analysis. In Analysing citizenship talk, eds. Heiko Hausendorf and Al-fons Bora, 151–181. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/dapsac.19.11sbi Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Uptake and conventionality in illocution. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 5(1): 33–52.10.2478/v10016-009-0003-0 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Schumann, Jennifer, Sandrine Zufferey, and Steve Oswald. 2019. What makes a straw man acceptable? Three experiments as-sessing linguistic factors. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 1–15.10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.009 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173438 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Stevens, Katharina. 2021. Fooling the victim: Of straw men and those who fall for them. Philosophy & Rhetoric 54(2): 109–127.10.5325/philrhet.54.2.0109 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Stevens, Katharina. 2022. Silence at the meta-level: A story about argumentative cruelty. Philosophy and Rhetoric 55(1): 76–82.10.5325/philrhet.55.1.0076 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Talisse, Robert and Scott F. Aikin. 2006. Two forms of the straw man. Argumentation 20(3): 345–352.10.1007/s10503-006-9017-8 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Tindale, Christopher W. 2007. Fallacies and argument appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511806544 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Uzelgun, Mehmet Ali, Mohammed, Dima, Lewiński, Marcin and Paula Castro. 2015. Managing disagreement through yes, but… constructions: An argumentative analysis. Discourse Studies 17(4): 467–484.10.1177/1461445615578965 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Vox. [@vox_es]. 2022, September. #URGENT Vox in response to Irene Montero's outrageous words justifying pedophilia: 1. Presents a reproach to Irene Montero. 2. Announces legal ac-tions. 3. Demands the closure of the Ministry of Equality. [Tweet]. Twitter. URL accessed [22/09/2022]: https://twitter.com/vox_es/status/1572889630831415297.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, Douglas and Erik Krabbe. 1995. Commitment in dia-logue: Basic concepts of interpersonal reasoning. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, Douglas. 1996. The straw man fallacy. In Logic and argumentation, ed. Johan van Bentham, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 115–128. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Walton, Douglas. 2013. Methods of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Witek, Maciej. 2015. An interactional account of illocutionary practice. Language Sciences 47: 43–55.10.1016/j.langsci.2014.08.003 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar
- Yap, Audrey. 2020. Argumentation, adversariality, and social norms. Metaphilosophy 51(5): 747–765.10.1111/meta.12458 Google Scholar Search this bibliographic reference on Google Scholar