sign in sign up
<<
Home , Argumentum ad baculum, Fallacy of four terms, Formal fallacy, Secundum quid

BIBLIOGRAPHY

[Adams, 1954] E. M. Adams. The Fundamentals ofGeneral . Longmans , Green & Co., New York, 1954. [Allport, 1958] Gordon W. Allport. The Nature ofPrejudice. Doubleday An­ chor Books, Garden City, New York" 1958. [Atherton, 1993] Catherine Atherton. The Stoics on . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. [Atlas, 1989] Jay David Atlas. Without Ambiguity: A Logico­ Linguistic Essay. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. [Barth and Krabbe, 1982] E. M. Barth and E. C. W. Krabbe. From Axiom to Dialogue. De Gruyter, New York, 1982. [Barth and Martens, 1977] E. M. Barth and J. L. Martens. Argumentum : From chaos to formal dialectic. Logique et Analyse, 77-78:76­ 96, 1977. [Beardsley, 1950] Monroe C. Beardsley. Practical Logic. Prentice-Hall, New York,1950. [Beardsley, 1956] Monroe C. Beardsley. Thinking Straight. Prentice-Hall, En­ glewood Cliffs, 1956. [Bentham, 1969] Jeremy Bentham. The book of (1824) . In Mary P. Mack, editor, A Bentham Reader, pages 331-358. Pegasus, New York, 1969. [Bertin, 1995] Oliver Bertin . Poor communication cited in ship mishaps . The Globe and Mail, B2, 18 October 1995. [Black, 1946] Max Black. Critical Thinking . Prentice-Hall, New York, 1946. [Blair, 1988] J. Anthony Blair. What is bias? In Trudy Govier, editor, Selected Issues in Logic and Communication, pages 93-103. Wadsworth , Belmont, 1988. [Brinton, 1986] Alan Brinton. Ethotic . History ofPhilosophy Quar­ terly, 3:245-257, 1986. [Broad and Wade, 1982] William Broad and Nicholas Wade. Betrayers ofthe Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls ofScience. Simon & Schuster, New York,1982.

281 282 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Burtt, 1931] Edwin Arthur Burtt. Principles and Problems ofRight Thinking,. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1931. [Campbell, 1974] Stephen K. Campbell. Flaws and Fallacies in Statistical Thinking . Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1974. [Castell, 1935] Alburey Castell. A College Logic. The Macmillan Co., New York,1935. [Cederblom and Paulsen, 1982] Jerry Cederblom and David W. Paulsen. Crit­ ical Reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1982. [Copi and Burgess-Jackson, 1992] Irving M. Copi and Keith Burgess-Jackson. Informal Logic. Macmillan, New York, 2nd edition, 1992. [Copi and Cohen, 1990] Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen. Introduction to Logic. Macmillan, New York, 8th edition, 1990. [Creighton,1904] James E. Creighton. An Introductory Logic. Macmillan, London, 1904. [Cresswell, 1973] M.1. Cresswell. and Languages. Methuen, London, 1973. [Cushing, 1994] Steven Cushing. Fatal Words: Communication Clashes and Aircraft Crashes. Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1994. [Darner, 1980] T. Edward Darner. Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, Belmont, 1980. Second edition, 1987. [Delvlorgan, 1847] Augustus DeMorgan. Formal Logic. Taylor and Walton, London , 1847. [Donohue, 1978] William A. Donohue. An empirical framework for exam­ ining negotiation processes and outcomes. Communication Monographs, 45:247-257,1978. [Donohue, 1981] William A. Donohue. Development of a model of rule use in negotiation interaction. Communication Monographs, 48: 106-120, 1981. [Edlow, 1977] Robert Blair Edlow. Galen on Language and Ambiguity. E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1977. [Eisenberg, 1984] Eric M. Eisenberg. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51:227-242,1984. [Engel, 1982] S. Morris Engel. With Good : An Introduction to Infor­ mal Fallacies. St. Martin's Press, New York, 2nd edition, 1982. [Engel,1989] S. Morris Engel. The many faces of amphiboly. Metaphiloso­ phy, 20:347-355, 1989. [Fearnside and Holther, 1959] W. Ward Fearnside and William B. Holther. : The Counterfeit ofArgument. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1959. BIBLIOGRAPHY 283

[Fischer, 1970] David Hackett Fischer. Historians ' Fallacies. Harper & Row, New York, 1970. [Flowers et al., 1982] Margot Flowers, Rod McGuire, and Lawrence Birn­ baum. Adversary and the logic of personal attacks, pages 275­ 294. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982. [Fraunce, 1588] Abraham Fraunce. The Lawier'sLogike. William Howe, Lon­ don, 1588. [Freeman, 1988] James B. Freeman . Thinking Logically. Prentice-Hall, En­ glewood Cliffs, 1988. [Gair, 1992] Bain Gair. Pizza promotions often pie-in-the-sky: Two-for-one offers not what they seem. Winnipeg Free Press, pages 1-2, 1992. [Gibson , 1908J W. R. Boyce Gibson. The Problem of Logic. Adam Black, London, 1908. [Gillon, 1990] Brendan S. Gillon . Ambiguity, generality and indeterminacy: Tests and definitions. Synthese , 85:391--416, 1990. [Glare, 1982] P. G. W. Glare, editor. Oxford Latin Dictionary. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1982. [Graham, 19771 Michael H. Graham. Impeaching the professional expert wit­ ness by a showing of financial interest. Indiana Law Journal, 53:35-53, 1977. [Grice, 1975] H. Paul Grice. Logic and conversation. In Donald Davidson and Gilbert Harman, editors, The Logic ofGrammar, pages 64-75. Dickenson Publishing Co., Encino, California, 1975. [Hamblin , 1970] Charles L. Hamblin . Fallacies. Methuen, London, 1970. Reprinted by Vale Press, Newport News, Virginia, 1986. [Hamblin, 1971] Charles L. Hamblin . Mathematical models of dialogue. Theoria, 37:130-155,1971. [Hansen, 1990] Hans V. Hansen. An informal logic bibliography,. Informal Logic , 12:155-184, 1990. [Hastings, 1962] Arthur Hastings. A Reformulation ofthe Modes ofReason ing in Argumentation. PhD thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1962. [Henry W. Johnstone, 1981l Henry W. Johnstone, Jr. Towards an ethics of . Communication, 6:305-314, 1981. [Hibben, 1906] John Grier Hibben . Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1906. [Hinman, 1982J Lawrence M. Hinman . The case for ad hominem arguments . Australasian Journal ofPhilosophy, 60:338-345, 1982. 284 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Hintikka, 1959] Jaakko Hintikka. and the ambiguity of ambiguity. Inquiry, 2:137-151,1959. [Hintikka, 1971] Jaakko Hintikka. Different kinds of in aristotle. Journal ofthe History ofPhilosophy, 9:368-372, 1971. [Hintikka, 1981] Jaakko Hintikka. The logic of information-seeking dia­ logues : A model. In Werner Becker and Wilhelm K. Essler, editors, Konzepte der Dialektik, pages 212-231. Vittorio Klostermann, Frankfurt am Main, 1981. [Huby, 1994] Pamela Huby. Aristotle. In Douglas Walton and Alan Brinton, editors, Historical Foundations ofInformal Logic. To appear, 1994. [Hughes and Cresswell, 1968] G. E. Hughes and M. J. Cresswell. An Introduc­ tion to Modal Logic. Methuen, London, 1968. [Hurley, 1991] Patrick J. Hurley. Logic. Wadsworth, Belmont, California, 4th edition, 1991. [Jacobs and Jackson, 1983] Scott Jacobs and Sally Jackson. Speech act struc­ ture in conversation. In Robert T.Craig and Karen Tracy, editors , Conversa­ tional Coherence: Form, Structure and Strategy, pages 47-66. Sage, Bev­ erly Hills, 1983. [James, 1907] William James. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways ofThinking . Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1907. [Jevons, 1883] W. Stanley Jevons. The Elements ofLogic. Sheldon and Co., New York, 1883. [Johnson and Blair, 1983] Ralph H. Johnson and J. Anthony Blair. Logical Self-Defense. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, Toronto, 1983. [Jonsen and Toulmin, 1988] Albert R. Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin. The Abuse ofCausistry. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1988. [Joseph, 1916] H. W. B. Joseph . An Introduction to Logic. The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2nd edition, 1916. [Keynes, 1887] John Neville Keynes. Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic. Macmillan and Co., London, 1887. [Kilgore, 1968] William J. Kilgore. An Introductory Logic. Holt, Rinehart and Winston , New York, 1968. [Knapp, 1981] Mark L. Knapp. Telling it like it isn't: A review of theory and research on deceptive communications. Human Communication Research, 5:270-285, 1981. [Krabbe and Walton, 1993] Erik C. W. Krabbe and Douglas Walton. It's all very well for you to talk! Informal Logic, 15:79-91,1993. [Krabbe, 1990] Erik C. W. Krabbe. Inconsistent commitment and commitment to inconsistencies. Informal Logic, 12:33-42, 1990. BIBLIOGRAPHY 285

[Kreyche, 196 I] Robert1. Kreyche . Logicfor Undergraduates. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1961. [Latta and MacBeath, 1956] Robert Latta and Alexander MacBeath. The Ele­ ments ofLogic. Macmillan & Co., London, 1956. [Lepenies, 1992] Wolf Lepenies. Sombre mood of france 's darkest years. The Times Higher, page 14, 1992. [Little et al., 1955] Winston W.Little, W. Harold Wilson, and W. Edgar Moore. Applied Logic. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1955. [Lutz, 1989] William Lutz. Doublespeak. Harper & Row, New York, 1989. [Mackenzie, 1981] 1. D. Mackenzie. The dialectics of logic . Logique et Anal­ yse, 94:159-177, 1981. [Mackenzie, 1988] 1. D. Mackenzie. Distinguo: The response to equivocation. Argumentation, 2:465-482, 1988. [Mackie, 1967] J. L. Mackie. Fallacies. In Paul Edwards, editor, Encyclopedia ofPhilosophy. 1967. [Manicas and Kruger, 1968] Peter T. Manicas and Arthur N. Kruger. Essen­ tials ofLogic. American Book Co., New York, 1968. [Mellone, 1913] Sydney Herbert Mellone.An Introductory Text-Book ofLogic. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1913. [Michalos, 1970] Alex C. Michalos. Improving Your Reasoning. Prentice­ Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970. [Mill, 1970] John Stuart Mill . A System ofLogic. Longmans, London, 1970. First published in 1843. [Moore, 1965] G. E. Moore. Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, 1965. [Parker and Veatch, 1959] Francis H. Parker and Henry B. Veatch. Logic as a Human Instrument. Harper & Brothers, New York, 1959. [Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969] Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts­ Tyteca. The New Rhetoric. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1969. Translated by John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver. [Reiter, 1987] Raymond Reiter. Nonmonotonic reasoning. Annual Review of Computer Science, 2:147-186,1987. [Rescher, 1964] Nicholas Rescher. Introduction to Logic. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1964. [Rescher, 1976] Nicholas Rescher. Plausible Reasoning. Van Gorcum, Assen­ Amsterdam, 1976. [Rescher, 1977] Nicholas Rescher. Dialectics. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1977. [Roberts, 1984] Lawrence D. Roberts. Ambiguity vs. generality: Removal of a logical confusion. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 14:295-313, 1984. 286 FALLACIES ARISINGFROM AMBIGUITY

[Robinson,1941] Richard Robinson. Ambiguity. Mind, 50:140-155,1941. [Robinson, 1947] Daniel Sommer Robinson. The Principles of Reasoning . Appleton-Century Co., New York, 1947. [Ruby, 1950] Lionel Ruby. Logic: An Introduction . 1. B. Lippincott Co., Chicago, 1950. [Runes, 1964] Dagobert D. Runes. Dictionary of Philosophy. Littlefield, Adams & Co., Paterson, 15th edition, 1964. [Ryle, 1971] Gilbert Ryle. Collected Papers, volume 2 of Collected Papers. Hutchinson, London, 1971. [Salmon, 1984] Wesley C. Salmon. Logic. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 3rd edition, 1984. [Scheffler, 1979] Israel Scheffler. Beyond the Letter:A Philosophical In­ quiry into Ambiguity, and Metaphor in Language. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1979. [Schiller, 1912] F. C. S. Schiller. Formal Logic. Macmillan & Co., London, 1912. [Schipper and Schuh, 1959] Edith W. Schipper and Edward W. Schuh. A First Course in Modem Logic. Henry Holt and Co., New York, 1959. [Scriven, 1976] Michael Scriven. Reasoning. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976. [Sidgwick,1914] Alfred Sidgwick. Elementary Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1914. [Soccio and Barry, 1992] Douglas J. Soccio and Vincent E. Barry. Practical Logic. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, 4th edition, 1992. [Taylor, 1966] Richard Taylor. Deliberation and foreknowledge. In Bernard Berofsky, editor, Free Willand Determinism, pages 277-293. Harper & Row, New York, 1966. [Thomas, 1970] Stephen N. Thomas. A modal muddle. In Gerald Dworkin, editor, Free Will and Moral Responsibility, pages 141-148. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1970. [Thouless, 1930] Robert H. Thouless. Straight and Crooked Thinking . English Universities Press , London, 1930. l'Ioulmin et aI., 1979] Stephen Toulmin, Richard Rieke, and Allan Janik. An Introduction to Reasoning. Macmillan, New York, 1979. [Ullman-Margalit,1983] Edna Ullman-Margalit. On Presumption, The Jour­ nal ofPhilosophy, 80:143-163, 1983. [van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1984] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo ­ tendorst. Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Foris, Dordrecht, 1984. BIBLIOGRAPHY 287

[van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1987] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo­ tendorst. Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective. Argumentation, 1:283­ 301,1987. [van Eemeren and Grootendorst, 1992] Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Groo­ tendorst. Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1992. [van Eemeren and Kruiger, 1987] Frans H. van Eemeren and Tjark Kruiger. Identifying argumentation schemes. In Frans H. van Eemeren et al., editor, Argumentation: Perspectives and Approaches, pages 70-81. Foris Publica­ tions, Dordrecht and Providence, 1987. [Waller, 1988] Bruce N. Waller. Critical Thinking. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1988. [Walton and Krabbe, 1995] Douglas N. Walton and Erik C. W. Krabbe. Com­ mitment in Dialogue. State University of New York Press, Albany, 1995. [Walton, 1985] Douglas N. Walton. Arguer's Position . Greenwood Press, New York, 1985. [Walton, 1987] Douglas N. Walton. Informal Fallacies: Towards a Theory of Argument Criticisms. John Benjamins Publishing Co., Amsterdam, 1987. [Walton, 1988] Douglas N. Walton. Burden of proof. Argumentation, 2:233­ 254, 1988. [Walton, 1989a] Douglas N. Walton. Informal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. [Walton, 1989b] Douglas N. Walton. Question-Reply Argumentation. Green­ wood Press, New York, 1989. [Walton, 1990aJ Douglas N. Walton. Practical Reasoning: Goal-Driven, Knowledg e-Based, Action- Guiding Argumentation. Rowman and Little­ field, Savage, Maryland, 1990. [Walton, 1990b] Douglas N. Walton. What is reasoning ? what is an argument ? The Journal ofPhilosophy, 87:399-419,1990. [Walton, 1991al Douglas Walton. Bias, critical doubt and fallacies. Argumen­ tation and Advocacy, 28: 1-22, 1991. [Walton, 1991bl Douglas N. Walton. : Circular Reason­ ing as a Tactic ofArgumentation. Greenwood Press, New York, 1991. [Walton, 1992aJ Douglas N. Walton. Nonfallacious arguments from igno­ rance. American Philosophical Quarterly, 29:381-387,1992. [Walton, 1992bJ Douglas N. Walton. The Place ofEmotion in Argument. The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1992. [Walton, 1992cJ Douglas N. Walton. Plausible Argument in Everyday Conver­ sation . State University of New York Press, Albany, 1992. 288 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY

[Walton, 1992d] Douglas N. Walton. Arguments. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1992. [Walton,1995] Douglas N. Walton. A Pragmatic Theory ofFallacy. Univer­ sity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, 1995. [Walton, 1996] Douglas N. Walton. Argumentsfrom Ignorance. The Pennsyl­ vania State University Press, University Park, PA, 1996. [Ward, 1980] Philip Ward. A Dictionary ofCommon Fallacies. Prometheus Brooks, Buffalo, New York, 1980. [Werier, 1993] ValWerier. Keep it simple and we'll understand. Winnipeg Free Press, page A6, 1993. [Werkmeister, 1948] William H. Werkmeister. An Introduction to Critical Thinking . Johnson Publishing Co., Lincoln, Nebraska, 1948. [Whately, 1836] Richard Whately. Elements ofLogic. William Jackson , New York,1836. [Whately, 1963] Richard Whately. Elements ofRhetoric. In Douglas Ehninger, editor, Reprint of the seventh British edition published by John W. Parker in London, 1846. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Ed­ wardsville, 1963. [Wheelwright,1962] Philip Wheelwright. Valid Thinking: An Introduction to Logic. The Odyssey Press, New York, 1962. [Williams and Goss, 1975] M. Lee Williams and Blaine Goss. Equivocation: Character insurance. Human Communication Research, 1:265- 270, 1975. [Woods and Walton, 1977] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Composition and division. Studia Logica, 36:381-406,1977. Reprinted in [Woods and Walton, 1989, pp. 93-1191 [Woods and Walton, 1979] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Equivocation and practical logic. Ratio , 21:31-43, 1979. Reprinted in Woods and Wal­ ton, 1989,pp. 195-207. [Woods and Walton, 1989] John Woods and Douglas Walton. Fallacies: Se­ lected Papers 1972-1982. Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 1989. [Woolf, 1974] Henry Bosley Woolf, editor. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Simon & Schuster, New York, Pocket Books, 1974. [Zwicky and Sadock, 1975] Arnold M. Zwicky and Jerrold M; Sadock. Am­ biguity tests and how to fail them. Syntax and Semantics, pages 1-36, 1975. [Zwicky and Sadock, 1987] Arnold M. Zwicky and Jerrold M. Sadock. A non­ test for ambiguity. Canadian Journal ofPhilosophy, 17:185-188, 1987. Index

'abusive' ad hominem, 228 argumentum ad ignorantiam, 196, ad populum fallacy, 175 207 apparentia or seeming-correctness, argumentum ad verecundiam, 204 180 arousing suspicions, 187 contra attitude, 247 attitude, 245 pro attitude, 247 bad character for veracity, 201 absence of knowledge, 240 balance in argumentation, 243 accusatory questions, 199 balanced reporting, 227 ad baculum, 141 Be clear, 271 advertising, 115 bearing, 72 advice, 94 bias, 222 advice-giving dialogue, 70 bad bias, 136, 242 advice-giving exchange, 97 bias type of ad hominem, 230 aggressive, 248 biased questions, 236 ambiguity arising from stress or ac- bite, 72 centuation, 256 blunder, 66, 150 ambiguity of a question, 128 browbeat, 248 ambiguous headline, 70 burden of proof, 72, 217 ambiguous inflexion, 163 business transactions, 115 amphibolous sentence, 88 analogical reasoning, 171 capability to deceive, 68 anatomically correct dolls, 199 case of the Oracle at Delphi, 93 apparentia, 65 charges of equivocation, 271 argument by innuendo, 185 circumstantial ad hominem argument, argument from testimony, 20 I, 202 228 argument requirement, 78, 269 cognitive dissonance, 68 argumentation schemes, 223 commitment store, 152,251 , 214 complex questions, 216 argumentum ad hominem, 213, 228 confusion, 80

289 290 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY confusions in argumentation, 99 etymology, 167 connotative meaning, 183 eulogistic, 183 contracts, 275 eulogistic terms, 278 conversational maxims, 105 evading commitment, 94 creating misgivings, 189 evidence reactivity, 245 criminal trial, 196 expert advice-giving, 114 critical discussion, 209,224 expert consultation, 235 critical doubt, 243, 245 expert consultation dialogue, 227 critical questions, 201 expert , 203 critical thinking, 115 explicit denial innuendo, 195 criticisms of bias, 251 fabrication of data, 226 dark-side commitments, 114 failure of communicatin, 111, 176 deceptive ambiguity, 74 fallacy 'within language', 143 deceptive argumentation, 119 fallacy dependent on language, 253 deep deception, 74 fallacy of ambiguity, 70, 72, 256 defeasible, 209 fallacy of ambiguous middle, 84 deliberation, 88, 209 fallacy of biased statistics, 235 Delphic Oracles, 97 of and divi- dialectical, 221 sion, 274 dialectical bias, 249 fallacy of figure of speech, 274 dialectical shift, 225, 251 fallacy of figures, 178 dogmatic, 247 , 84 dogmatic approach, 235 fallacy of gobbledygook, 182 doublespeak, 176 fallacy of hypostatization, 171 dyslogistic, 183 fallacy of , 175 dyslogistic terms, 278 fallacy of paronymous words, 165 fallacy of relative terms, 54 empathy, 244, 250 fallacy of , 134,274 emphasis, 121, 127 false rumours, 188 emphasis in a written text, 128 figurative language, 178 emphatic ambiguity, 261 figurative use of language, 256 eristic dialogue, 227 financial interest, 250 error, 66 flexibility of commitment, 244 error of communication, 150 , 99, 103 error ofreasoning, 74, 216 fraud,226 escaping commitment, 150, 218 ethos, 231 generalization, 239 etymological derivation, 168 , 181 A PRAGMATIC SYNTHESIS 291 gobbledygook, 176 legal argumentation, 272 good bias, 242 legal dialogues, 115 gossip, 195,209 lexical ambiguity, 256, 260 grammatical ambiguity, 140,256 linguistic fallacy, 103 grammatical form, 159 linguistic usage, 163 Gricean co-operativeness principle, literal meaning, 57 117 , 155 Gricean implicature, 117, 130, 211 Lorenzen formal dialogue, 230 Gricean maxim of clarity, 255 lying, 72 Gricean maxims ofcommunication, lynch mob syndrome, 197 202 maxim of clarity, 265 Hamblin's slippery slide, 130 miscommunication, 72 harmful type of bias, 227 misleading advertising, 118, 121 hasty generalization, 238 misleading conclusion, 126 hedging, 110 misleading headlines, 130 hypostatization, 159, 182 misleading implicature, 140 misleading quotation, 131 ignorance, 82 misleading use of language, 95 impartiality, 223 misquoting of sources, 124 imperative, 71 mistaken inferences, 99 improperly rendering an expert opin- misuse of etymology, 167, 169, 181, ion, 132 182 inconsistency of commitment, 219 multiplex, 263 indirect speech acts, 194 multiplex categories, 262 inference, 81 multiplex doctrine, 262 inflection, 181 inflective ambiguity, 261 negative point of view, 242 information-seeking dialogue, 209, negotiation, 116, 223 226 negotiation dialogue, 226 inquiry, 226 neutral attitude, 247 intersubjective testing procedure, 234 non-ambiguous advice, 115 intimidation tactics, 141 non-declarative expressions, 258 intonation, 121 nonmonotonic reasoning, 240 irony, 147 normative, 221 normative concept, 251 joke, 137 obscure (unclear) language, 182 lack ofbalance, 250 obstructive bias, 250 lack of clarity, 176 omissions of context, 132 292 FALLACIES ARISING FROM AMBIGUITY one-sided presentation, 133 retraction, 190 open-mindedness, 245 retraction of commitment, 194 Oracle case, 96 rhetorical element of verbal presen- overlookingqualifications (secundum tation, 152 quid), 139 rigorous dialogues, 114 RPD,266 partisan dialogue, 253 rumour, 195, 209 parts, 99 permissive dialogues, 114 scaremongering tactics, 141 plausible deniability, 94 scientific argumentation, 226 plausible reading, 99 scope of the modal operator, 99 political debates, 115 , 238, 241 positive point of view, 242 selective quotation, 142 potentially ambiguous sentence, 149 semantic ambiguity, 260 PPD,266 seriousness requirement, 78, 97 pragmatic, 221 shades of spoken intonation, 152 pragmatic ambiguity, 94, 260 shift, 55 pragmatic fallacy, 144 slanted discourse, 144 prejudice, 238 slanted point of view, 133 presumption, 205 small print, 121, 129 probative function, 270 smoking example, 230 ofdeep deception, 62 problem sophism, 74 problem of evaluation, 140 sophistical deception, 150 problem of indentification, 142 sophistical tactic, 11 0 propaganda, 244 speech act, 206 public opinion, 196 staining effect of innuendo, 195 public pressure, 199 staining or sticking effect of gossip, quarrelling, 224 190 quaternio terminorum, 84 standard treatment, 71, 155 questioning, 217 stereotypes, 239 quibbling, 53 stipulative definition, 75 quotation of a whole passage out of stipulative versus real definitions, 54 context, 131 stress, 121, 125 structurally ambiguous sentences, 79 Raymond of Pennafort, 71 style of presentation, 177 realistic deception, 72 substantive dispute, 74 refutation, 74 subtle changes of emphasis, 132 relevant evidence, 187 suggestion, 121,217 reputation, 195 suggestive ambiguity, 262 A PRAGMATIC SYNTHESIS 293 suppression of evidence, 121, 139 suspension, 245 , 260 tacit inferences, 93 technical bias, 236 test for ambiguity, 255, 258 tolerant of ambiguity, 113 tricky tactic, 94 tutiorism, 195 type of dialogue, 113 uncertainty, 75 unfounded charges , 187 vagueness, 54, 55 verbal agreement, 75, 275 verbal confusion, 128 verbal stress, 125

Whately's rule of paronymous words, 165 wholes, 99 wrenching from context, 121 wrong inference, 92, 93, 97 zero point of view, 241, 242