DOCSLIB.ORG

Relevance Theory Through Pragmatic Theories of Meaning

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Relevance Theory Through Pragmatic Theories of Meaning Relevance Theory through Pragmatic Theories of Meaning Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen (ahti-veikko.pietarinen@helsinki.fi) Department of Philosophy; P. O. Box 9 FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland Abstract is the sum total of its implications for possible observa- tions and actions. I argue that we may classify the Rele- A century ago, Peirce developed a pragmatic theory of vance Theory (RT) of (Sperber & Wilson, 1995) within meaning. The theory appeals to the Pragmatic Maxim. the framework of such pragmatic theory of meaning. It says that the meaning of a concept is the sum total The RT claims to provide a logical and cognitive ac- of its implications for possible observations and actions. The Relevance Theory of Sperber & Wilson is classified count of relevance. It attempts to capture the notion of according to that criteria to the category of pragmatic relevance in communicative situations through contex- theories of meaning. It is argued that relevance is an tual effects. Since it is impossible to know in advance instance of the application of the Pragmatic Maxim. which descriptions of circumstances or parts of the com- Keywords: Relevance theory, pragmatic theory of mon ground will actually be relevant to the dynamic, meaning, Peirce, pragmatic maxim, pragmatics, com- on-going processes of linguistic communication, Sperber positionality. & Wilson define the notion in terms of a context-change potential. In other words, relevant factors or properties of an Introduction expression are those which intrude into the context of discourse. This is an argument from cognitive economy: Peirce's Pragmatic Theory of Meaning the goal of communication is to maximise the relevance Charles Sanders Peirce (1839{1914), the noted American of the phenomena available to language users while min- philosopher and scientist, took pragmatic meaning as a imising the amount of mental or cognitive processing ef- rule of logic embodied in the Pragmatic Maxim (PM): fort. The grounds for believing in cognitive economy are, Consider what effects, that might conceivably have prac- in turn, evolutionary. tical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of these effects is the whole of Relevance Theory and the Pragmatic our conception of the object (5.402, 1878, How to Make Maxim our Ideas Clear).1 When considering whether a thought is logical, one has to take the practical consequences of Preamble that thought into account. These consequences do not The Inferential Model of Communication Ac- have to be actually acted out, but one has to consider cording to RT, the inferential model of communication them and take them to be conceivable if any thought was involves attempts to share, distribute and recognise acts to be complete at all. of intention, emotion and other modalities delivered in Such pragmatic forms of meaning are of utmost im- communication. These attempts are what contribute portance not only in linguistic pragmatics and commu- to the relevance of utterances intended to communicate nication, but also in current theories of knowledge repre- particular pieces of information. What agents recognise sentation, conceptual graphs in computer and cognitive as relevant is largely related to common traces in their sciences, as well as in the upcoming vision of a `semantic experience. web' (Pietarinen, 2003a). All of the applications have enormous potential for the future societies and methods Context The notion of context is therefore central to of communication. Among others, the prominent role of this theory, since what is relevant is that which produces such thinking is recognised in recent logical and topolog- a tangible contextual effect, or which penetrates the con- ical approaches to space and time (Pietarinen, 2005a). text of discourse.2 The goal of RT is to provide a theory of communication that would function as a reference for Sperber & Wilson's Relevance Theory a host of pragmatic phenomena running wild in linguistic populations. Peirce developed a pragmatic theory of meaning, which appeals to the PM. It says that the meaning of a concept 2Apart from cognitive economy, the idea hints at an el- ement of utilitarianism in the definition of communicative 1The reference is to Peirce (1931{1958) by volume and goals in terms of the maximisation of something (in this con- paragraph number. text, relevance). 1767 Moderate Psychologism The basic idea of RT is that the infiltration of such items into that context have thus neither entirely psychological nor epistemic, though may thus be read as Sperber & Wilson's preferred prop- admitting a modicum of both. It aims at providing a the- erties of relevance in linguistic utterances, which balance ory which is psychologically and psycholinguistically re- the inferences made in choosing between possible rival alistic, but not overly so. It is an attempt to make sense interpretations against the notion of the cost of making of linguistic pragmatics at the cognitive level which, ac- such inferences. In the light of PM, and mutatis mutan- cording to (Carston, 1988, p. 713), is \the first account dis, RT turns out to be a markedly pragmatic theory of of pragmatics which is grounded in psychology". pragmatics.5 Note that this may not be a major compliment. Most The Subjunctive Formulation The PM also states have regarded H. Paul Grice's program of analysing lit- that practical consequences need not be actualised, even eral meaning in public language through conversational though they need to be actualisable. They illustrate a maxims as psychological, since it involves speakers' and `would-be', a modality presented to the consciousness hearers' intentions and beliefs (Grice, 1989). I consider of future deliberation. According to Peirce's scholastic this assimilation to be a gross oversimplification even on realism, possibilities are just as real as actual objects and Grice's own account (Pietarinen, 2004b). events. Meaning as a list of practical consequences of a That the aim of relevance would be in psychological concept is characterised in terms of subjunctive rather explanation backfires. Even though announced as one of than indicative conditionals. the main aims of RT, the idea of relevance has not been This subjunctive nature of meaning is central to RT, tame enough to suit the needs of a rigorous logical mod- in which it is exceedingly difficult to say which among elling of discourse, since such an enterprise would hinge the wide variety of relevant semantic attributes would on effective ways of representing contextual information finally materialise. Such hypotheticals manifest them- and its change. selves in the relevance of the proposition \Diamonds are The Pragmatic Maxim hard but not very firm” as expressed by a conditional such as \If diamonds are rubbed then they are unlikely Formulation My key concern, given Peirce's prag- to be scratched" as well as in \If diamonds are struck matic outlook on the meaning of concepts, is the placing against something rock hard they are likely to break into of Sperber & Wilson's proposal in a wider perspective. I pieces". wish to suggest that relevance may be thought of as an instance of Peirce's PM, which says that the meaning of Note that this later subjunctive formulation has a concept is the sum total of its implications for possible caused some to consider the PM to be both too liberal observations and actions. and too broad in its characterisation of concept mean- The formulation of PM first appeared in the January ing in terms of possible, potential or expected practical 1878 issue of Popular Science Monthly. Several versions effects that may never be manifested. of it exist in Peirce's large corpus. A very succinct and Subjunctive Contextual Change This criticism is unambiguous one says that \the maxim of logic [is] that nevertheless not effective in formulations of PM that the meaning of a word lies in the use that is to be made take relevance into account. What is expected to be rel- of it" (CN 2.184, 2 February 1899, Matter, Energy, Force evant is often not only sufficient for a contextual change and Work).3 to happen. A mere potentiality may also intrude into the context and change the constitution in a hypothetical Unfolding the PM For initial purposes, PM may way, as a form of possible or subjunctively accounted con- be read such that, in assessing the scores and the over- textual change, rather than actually realising and bring- all scale according to which items of information are ing any observable effect into existence. weighted depends to a large extent on (i) practical con- sequences of accommodating the chosen piece of infor- One example of a potential effect is the asymmetric mation introduced in communication, and (ii) what will case of the hearer's determination of what would count ensue as a consequence of actually using that piece in as relevant in contradistinction to what the speaker in- further cycles of discourse.4 According to PM, the most tended to be relevant. In other words, relevance to the relevant information is that which provides the best toe- hearer may remain a potential change, given the shared hold for agents to continue the dialogue or action. environment of the utterance. We may thus think of practical bearings as contextual Relevance as a Constraint According to Sperber & bearings which an item of information, or a belief, has on Wilson's original formulation of RT, relevance is some- the context within which it is located. The implications thing that is not determined by context but constrained by context. On the contrary, thus, a particular context 3 The reference is to Peirce (1975{1987) by volume and is determined by the search for relevance, the interpreter paragraph number. The quotation is a striking foreshadow- ing of Wittgenstein's mantra that \the word has meaning by acting according to the version of the Principle of Char- the particular use we make of it" (Wittgenstein, 2000, item ity that concerns relevance maximisation.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Review of Relevance STEPHEN C
    J. Linguistics 25 (1989), 455-472. Printed in Great Britain REVIEW ARTICLE A review of Relevance STEPHEN C. LEVINSON Department of Linguistics, University of Cambridge (Received 31 March 1989) Dan Sperber & Deirdre Wilson, Relevance: communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Pp. viii + 279. In this bold and highly controversial book, Sperber and Wilson attempt to shift the whole centre of gravity of pragmatic theory by locating it firmly in a general theory of cognition. Outlining that general theory takes the bulk of the book, so those who have followed technical developments in pragmatics will not find those issues much advanced here. For the purpose of the book is otherwise, to outline a single cognitive principle which (it is held) will give us, along with a theory of attention, almost all we need in the way of a theory of communication, such a theory in turn having linguistic applications merely sketched here.1 The book is written in a fluid argumentative style; easy to read, it is not easy to understand, presuming much that the central thesis depends on. Perhaps because of the global and speculative aims, there is little or no reference to recent developments in the theory of meaning.2 This book has already aroused much passion for and much passion against. Cited by its authors as long ago as 1979, the ideas have been trailered in a series of articles, with both critics and protagonists taking up provocative positions (see for example the still useful exchange in Smith, 1982). Thus when the book finally appeared, extensive airings of these passions were inevitable (see the peer review in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS) 10 (1987), or the exchange in Journal of Semantics 5 (1988)).3 The views have [1] A second and third volume on pragmatics and rhetoric were projected (vii-viii) and this reviewer had hoped for some glimpse of these applications before passing judgment on a disembodied principle, as it were.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking STARS Handout Finalx
    Critical Thinking "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle "The important thing is not to stop questioning." - Albert Einstein What is critical thinking? Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness. A Critical Thinker: Asks pertinent questions Assess statements and arguments Is able to admit a lack of understanding or information Has a sense of curiosity Is interested in finding new solutions Examines beliefs, assumptions and opinions and weighs them against facts Listens carefully to others and can give effective feedback Suspends judgment until all facts have been gathered and considered Look for evidence to support assumptions or beliefs Is able to adjust beliefs when new information is found Examines problems closely Is able to reject information that is irrelevant or incorrect Critical Thinking Standards and Questions: The most significant thinking (intellectual) standards/questions: • Clarity o Could you elaborate further on that point? o Could you give me an example? o Could you express
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking for the Military Professional
    Document created: 17 Jun 04 Critical Thinking For The Military Professional Col W. Michael Guillot “Any complex activity, if it is to be carried on with any degree of virtuosity, calls for appropriate gifts of intellect and temperament …Genius consists in a harmonious combination of elements, in which one or the other ability may predominate, but none may be in conflict with the rest.”1 In a previous article on Strategic leadership I described the strategic environment as volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA). Additionally, that writing introduced the concept of strategic competency.2 This article will discuss the most important essential skill for Strategic Leaders: critical thinking. It is hard to imagine a Strategic leader today who does not think critically or at least uses the concept in making decisions. Critical thinking helps the strategic leader master the challenges of the strategic environment. It helps one understand how to bring stability to a volatile world. Critical thinking leads to more certainty and confidence in an uncertain future. This skill helps simplify complex scenarios and brings clarity to the ambiguous lens. Critical thinking is the kind of mental attitude required for success in the strategic environment. In essence, critical thinking is about learning how to think and how to judge and improve the quality of thinking—yours and others. Lest you feel you are already a great critical thinker, consider this, in a recent study supported by the Kellogg Foundation, only four percent of the U.S. organizational
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Work in Relevant Logic
    Recent Work in Relevant Logic Mark Jago Forthcoming in Analysis. Draft of April 2013. 1 Introduction Relevant logics are a group of logics which attempt to block irrelevant conclusions being drawn from a set of premises. The following inferences are all valid in classical logic, where A and B are any sentences whatsoever: • from A, one may infer B → A, B → B and B ∨ ¬B; • from ¬A, one may infer A → B; and • from A ∧ ¬A, one may infer B. But if A and B are utterly irrelevant to one another, many feel reluctant to call these inferences acceptable. Similarly for the validity of the corresponding material implications, often called ‘paradoxes’ of material implication. Relevant logic can be seen as the attempt to avoid these ‘paradoxes’. Relevant logic has a long history. Key early works include Anderson and Belnap 1962; 1963; 1975, and many important results appear in Routley et al. 1982. Those looking for a short introduction to relevant logics might look at Mares 2012 or Priest 2008. For a more detailed but still accessible introduction, there’s Dunn and Restall 2002; Mares 2004b; Priest 2008 and Read 1988. The aim of this article is to survey some of the most important work in the eld in the past ten years, in a way that I hope will be of interest to a philosophical audience. Much of this recent work has been of a formal nature. I will try to outline these technical developments, and convey something of their importance, with the minimum of technical jargon. A good deal of this recent technical work concerns how quantiers should work in relevant logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks
    342 Computational Advantages of Relevance Reasoning in Bayesian Belief Networks Yan Lin Marek J. Druzdzel University of Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Intelligent Systems Program Department of Information Science Pittsburgh, PA 1.5260 and Intelligent Systems Program [email protected] Pittsburgh, PA 15260 marek@sis. pitt. edu Abstract reasoning, shown to be NP-hard both for exact infer­ ence [Cooper, 1990] and for approximate [Dagurn. and This paper introduces a computational Luby, 1993] inference. framework for reasoning in Bayesian belief The critical factor in exact inference schemes is the networks that derives significant advantages topology of the underlying graph and, more specifi­ from focused inference and relevance reason­ cally, its connectivity. The complexity of approximate ing. This framework is based on d-separation schemes may, in addition, depend on factors like the and other simple and computationally effi­ a-priori likelihood of the observed evidenee or asymme­ cient techniques for pruning irrelevant parts tries in probability distributions. There are a number of a network. Our main contribution is a of ingeniously efficient algorithms that allow for fast technique that we call relevance-based decom­ belief updating in moderately sized models.2 Still, position. Relevance-based decomposition ap­ eaeh of them is subject to the growth in complexity proaches belief updating in large networks that is generally exponential in the size of the model. by focusing on their parts and decompos­ Given the promise of the decision-theoretic approach ing them into partially overlapping subnet­ and an increasing number of its practical applications, works. This makes reasoning in some in­ it is important to develop schemes that will reduce the tractable networks possible and, in addition, computational complexity of inference.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Relevance Theory and Shared Content Herman Cappelen and Ernie Lepore
    7 relevance theory and shared content herman cappelen and ernie lepore Speakers share content when they make the same assertion (claim, conjecture, proposal, etc). They also share content when they propose (entertain, discuss, etc.) the same hypothesis, theory, and thought. And again when they evaluate whether what each says (thinks, claims, suggests, etc.) is true, false, interesting, obscene, original or offensive. Content sharing, so understood, is the very foundation of communication. Relevance theory (RT), however, implies that content sharing is impossible; or at least, we will argue as much in what follows. This chapte is divided into three sections. In section 1, we amplify on what we mean by ‘shared content’ and its roles in how we think about language and communication; we discuss various strategies RT might invoke to account for shared content and why all these strategies fail. Section 2 is exegetical; there we show why RT must deny the possibility of shared content. The denial is a direct consequence of some of the most central tenets of RT. It is, however, a consequence downplayed by RT proponents. Our goal in section 2 is to show how central the denial of shared content is to RT. In section 3 we outline how we think a pragmatic theory should account for shared content. question: good enough? According to RT, interpreters follow ‘the least effort strategy’ (LES): (LES) Check interpretive hypotheses in order of their accessibility, that is, follow a path of least effort, until an interpretation which satisfi es the expectation of relevance is found; then stop. (Carston 2001, 6) In section 2 we elaborate on how exactly to interpret (LES) and its RT defence.
    [Show full text]
  • John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected]
    John P. Burgess Department of Philosophy Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544-1006, USA [email protected] LOGIC & PHILOSOPHICAL METHODOLOGY Introduction For present purposes “logic” will be understood to mean the subject whose development is described in Kneale & Kneale [1961] and of which a concise history is given in Scholz [1961]. As the terminological discussion at the beginning of the latter reference makes clear, this subject has at different times been known by different names, “analytics” and “organon” and “dialectic”, while inversely the name “logic” has at different times been applied much more broadly and loosely than it will be here. At certain times and in certain places — perhaps especially in Germany from the days of Kant through the days of Hegel — the label has come to be used so very broadly and loosely as to threaten to take in nearly the whole of metaphysics and epistemology. Logic in our sense has often been distinguished from “logic” in other, sometimes unmanageably broad and loose, senses by adding the adjectives “formal” or “deductive”. The scope of the art and science of logic, once one gets beyond elementary logic of the kind covered in introductory textbooks, is indicated by two other standard references, the Handbooks of mathematical and philosophical logic, Barwise [1977] and Gabbay & Guenthner [1983-89], though the latter includes also parts that are identified as applications of logic rather than logic proper. The term “philosophical logic” as currently used, for instance, in the Journal of Philosophical Logic, is a near-synonym for “nonclassical logic”. There is an older use of the term as a near-synonym for “philosophy of language”.
    [Show full text]
  • A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor
    A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics Markus Tendahl A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Taiwan eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-02 eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect Taiwan - licensed to www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 10.1057/9780230244313 - A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, Markus Tendahl This page intentionally left blank Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Taiwan eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-02 eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect Taiwan - licensed to www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 10.1057/9780230244313 - A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, Markus Tendahl A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor Relevance Theory and Cognitive Linguistics Markus Tendahl University of Dortmund, Germany Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Taiwan eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-02 eBook Consortium - PalgraveConnect Taiwan - licensed to www.palgraveconnect.com material from Copyright 10.1057/9780230244313 - A Hybrid Theory of Metaphor, Markus Tendahl © Markus Tendahl 2009 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The author has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Recommending OLAP Sessions Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi
    A collaborative filtering approach for recommending OLAP sessions Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi To cite this version: Julien Aligon, Enrico Gallinucci, Matteo Golfarelli, Patrick Marcel, Stefano Rizzi. A collaborative filtering approach for recommending OLAP sessions. Decision Support Systems, Elsevier, 2015, pp.20. 10.1016/j.dss.2014.11.003. hal-01170959 HAL Id: hal-01170959 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01170959 Submitted on 2 Jul 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. A Collaborative Filtering Approach for Recommending OLAP Sessions Julien Aligon a, Enrico Gallinucci b, Matteo Golfarelli b, Patrick Marcel a;∗, Stefano Rizzi b aLaboratoire d'Informatique { Universit´eFran¸coisRabelais Tours, France bDISI, University of Bologna, Italy Abstract While OLAP has a key role in supporting effective exploration of multidimensional cubes, the huge number of aggregations and selections that can be operated on data may make the user experience disorientating. To address this issue, in the paper we propose a recommendation approach stemming from collaborative filter- ing. We claim that the whole sequence of queries belonging to an OLAP session is valuable because it gives the user a compound and synergic view of data; for this reason, our goal is not to recommend single OLAP queries but OLAP sessions.
    [Show full text]
  • Respecting Relevance in Belief Change
    David C. Makinson and George Kourousias Respecting relevance in belief change Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Makinson, David C. and Kourousias, George (2006) Respecting relevance in belief change. Análisis Filosófico, 26 (1). pp. 53-61. ISSN 0326-1301 © 2006 Sociedad Argentina de Análisis Filosófico This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/56812/ Available in LSE Research Online: May 2014 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. RESPECTING RELEVANCE IN BELIEF CHANGE DAVID MAKINSON AND GEORGE KOUROUSIAS Abstract. In this paper dedicated to Carlos Alchourr´on, we review an issue that emerged only after his death in 1996, but would have been of great interest to him: To what extent do the formal operations of AGM belief change respect criteria of relevance? A natural (but also debateable) criterion was proposed in 1999 by Rohit Parikh, who observed that the AGM model does not always respect it.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Returns: the Currency of Sceptical-Rhetorical Theory and Its Stylistic Inscription in the Platonic and Derridian Text
    Linguistic Returns: the currency of sceptical-rhetorical theory and its stylistic inscription in the Platonic and Derridian text by Monina Wittfoth B.A., The University of Toronto, 2000 M.A., The University of British Columbia, 2003 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (English) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) October 2010 © Monina Wittfoth, 2010 ii Abstract Based on the premise that modernity’s understanding of the linguistic sign has a long history dating back to ancient Greece when the linguistic mediation of knowledge preoccupied thinkers like Parmenides and Plato, this dissertation synthesizes contemporary post-structuralist and rhetorical understandings of language with like-minded findings of other fields of language study. It sees post-structuralist and deconstructive understandings of language as being congruent with the long tradition of rhetorical theory and the infamous linguistic turn in philosophy, that was initiated by the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, as a turn away from the actual phenomena of language towards an idealization of it. Nevertheless the thesis discovers recent findings by some of the beneficiaries of the “philosophy of language” that corroborate rhetorical theory’s insights. Inspired by both Derrida and Plato, this dissertation presents a rhetorical-deconstructive image of language that, recalling the root of the term skopevw (‘I look,’ ‘behold,’ ‘contemplate’), I characterize as sceptical.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambiguity in Argument Jan Albert Van Laar*
    Argument and Computation Vol. 1, No. 2, June 2010, 125–146 Ambiguity in argument Jan Albert van Laar* Department of Theoretical Philosophy, University of Groningen, Groningen 9712 GL, The Netherlands (Received 8 September 2009; final version received 11 February 2010) The use of ambiguous expressions in argumentative dialogues can lead to misunderstanding and equivocation. Such ambiguities are here called active ambiguities. However, even a normative model of persuasion dialogue ought not to ban active ambiguities altogether, one reason being that it is not always possible to determine beforehand which expressions will prove to be actively ambiguous. Thus, it is proposed that argumentative norms should enable each participant to put forward ambiguity criticisms as well as self-critical ambiguity corrections, inducing them to improve their language if necessary. In order to discourage them from nitpicking and from arriving at excessively high levels of precision, the parties are also provided with devices with which to examine whether the ambiguity corrections or ambiguity criticisms have been appropriate. A formal dialectical system is proposed, in the Hamblin style, that satisfies these and some other philosophical desiderata. Keywords: active ambiguity; argument; critical discussion; equivocation; persuasion dialogue; pseudo-agreement; pseudo-disagreement 1. Introduction Argumentative types of dialogue can be hampered by expressions that are ambiguous or equivocal. A participant can show dissatisfaction with such ambiguities by disambiguating the formulations he has used or by inciting the other side to improve upon their formulations. A typical example can be found in the case where W.B. had been arrested both for drink and driving and for driving under suspension.
    [Show full text]