Cover not available
Part of
Relevance Theory: Recent developments, current challenges and future directions
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 268] 2016
► pp. 261–285

Rhetoric and cognition

Pragmatic constraints on argument processing

 | University of Fribourg
This chapter defends a cognitive-pragmatic take on rhetorical effectiveness by hypothesising that information-selection mechanisms at play in the interpretation of verbal stimuli positively influence the outcome of subsequent argumentative evaluation. Moreover, this chapter also shows that relevance theory (Sperber and Wilson 1995) is ideally well equipped to develop this assumption. Indeed, this chapter argues that the inclusion of a cognitive pragmatic component in a theory of argumentation can boost the explanatory power of existing accounts, which typically refrain from adopting the sort of cognitive insights offered by relevance theorists (cf. van Eemeren and Grootendorst 2004: 74). Accordingly, an example from political discourse is discussed in this framework to illustrate its explanatory advantages.
Keywords: argumentation, contextual constraint, persuasion, pragmatics, rhetorical effectiveness
Published online: 20 October 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.268.10osw
References (43)
References
Attardo, Salvatore. 1994. Linguistic Theories of Humor. Berlin-New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aubouin, Elie. 1948. Technique et psychologie du comique. Marseille: OFEP.Google Scholar
Bardone, Emanuele. 2011. Seeking Chances. From Biased Rationality to Distributed Cognition. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Copi, Irving and Carl Cohen. 1990. Introduction to Logic, 8th edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Curcó, Carmen. 1995. “Some Observations on the Pragmatics of Humorous Interpretations. A Relevance-theoretic Approach.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 27–47.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, and Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. 2002. Argumentation. Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, and Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. The Pragma-dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans van, Rob Grootendorst, Francisca Snoeck Henkemans, Anthony Blair, Ralph Johnson, Erik Krabbe, Christian Plantin, Douglas Walton, Charles Willard, John Woods, and David Zarefsky. 1996. Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan S.B.T. 2004. “Biases in Deductive Reasoning.” In Cognitive Illusions. A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. by Rudiger Pohl, 127–144. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan S.B.T., and Keith Frankish (eds). 2009. In Two Minds. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Jonathan S.B.T., Julie Barston, and Paul Pollard. 1983. “On the Conflict between Logic and Belief in Syllogistic Reasoning.” Memory and Cognition 11 (3): 295–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd. 2008. “Why Heuristics Work.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 3 (1): 20–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groarke, Leo, and Christopher Tindale. 2004. Good Reasoning Matters! A Constructive Approach to Critical Reasoning. Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Sally. 1996. “Fallacies and Heuristics.” In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 101–114. 
Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.Google Scholar
Levine, Timothy R., and Rachel K. Kim. 2010. “Some Considerations for a New Theory of Deceptive Communication.” In The Interplay of Truth and Deception, ed. by Mark Knapp and Matthew McGlone, 16–34. New York: Routledge.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 (B): 164–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maillat, Didier. 2013. “Constraining Context Selection: On the Pragmatic Inevitability of Manipulation.” Journal of Pragmatics 59 (B): 190–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. “Manipulation et cognition: Un modèle pragmatique.” In Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 69–88. Berne: Peter Lang.
Maillat, Didier, and Steve Oswald. 2009. “Defining Manipulative Discourse: The pragmatics of Cognitive Illusions.” International Review of Pragmatics 1 (2): 348–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Constraining Context: A Pragmatic Account of Cognitive Manipulation.” In Critical Discourse Studies in Context and Cognition, ed. by 
Christopher Hart, 65–80. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo. 2011. “Looking for Arguments.” Argumentation 26 (3): 305–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber. 2009. “Intuitive and Reflective Inferences.” In In Two Minds, ed. by Jonathan S.B.T. Evans and Keith Frankish, 149–170. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2): 57–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, Daniel. 1996. “Argumentation Studies and Dual-process Models of Persuasion.” In Logic and Argumentation, ed. by Johan van Benthem, Frans H. van Eemeren, Rob 
Grootendorst, and Frank Veltman, 61–76. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Oswald, Magrit, and Stefan Grosjean. 2004. “Confirmation Bias.” In Cognitive Illusions. A Handbook on Fallacies and Biases in Thinking, Judgement and Memory, ed. by Rudiger Pohl, 79–96. Hove and New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Oswald, Steve. 2010. Pragmatics of Uncooperative and Manipulative Communication. PhD diss., University of Neuchâtel.Google Scholar
. 2011. “From Interpretation to Consent: Arguments, Beliefs and Meaning.” Discourse Studies 13 (6): 806–814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oswald, Steve, and Christopher Hart. 2013. “Trust Based on Bias: A Cognitive and Evolutionary Treatment of the Rhetorical Effectiveness of the Ad Verecundiam and Ad Populum Fallacies.” In Virtues of Argumentation. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), 22–26 May 2013 , ed. by Dima Mohammed and Marcin Lewiński, 1–13. Windsor, ON: OSSA.
Oswald, Steve, and Marcin Lewiński. 2014. “Pragmatics, Cognitive Heuristics and the Straw Man Fallacy.” In Rhetoric and Cognition. Theoretical Perspectives and Persuasive Strategies, ed. by Thierry Herman and Steve Oswald, 313–343. Berne: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 2008 [1958]. La nouvelle rhétorique: Traité de l’argumentation. Bruxelles: Editions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan. 1994. “The Modularity of Thought and the Epidemiology of Representations.” In Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, ed. by Lawrence A. Hirschfeld and Susan A. Gelman, 39–67. New York : Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “In Defence of Massive Modularity.” In Language, Brain and Cognitive Development: Essays in Honor of Jacques Mehler, ed. by Emmanuel Dupoux, 47–57. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2005. “Modularity and Relevance: How Can a Massively Modular Mind Be Flexible and Context-sensitive?” In The Innate Mind: Structure and Content, ed. by Peter 
Carruthers, Stephen Laurence, and Stephen Stich, 53–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance. Communication and Cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria. Origgi, and Deirdre Wilson. 2010. “Epistemic vigilance.” Mind & Language 25 (4): 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 2008[1959]. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas. 2010. “Why Fallacies Appear to Be Better Arguments than They Are.” Informal Logic 30 (2): 159–184.Google Scholar
Wason, Peter. 1960. “On the Failure to Eliminate Hypotheses in a Conceptual Task.” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 12 (3): 129–140. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1966. “Reasoning.” In New Horizons in Psychology, ed. by Brian M. Foss, 106–137. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre. 2010. “Understanding and Believing.” Paper delivered at the 4th International Conference on Intercultural Pragmatics , Madrid.
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Relevance Theory.” UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 14: 249–287.Google Scholar
Ziv, Avner. 1984. Personality and Sense of Humor. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Tseronis, Assimakis, Ramy Younis & Mehmet Ali Üzelgün
2024. A proposal for the evaluation of multimodal argumentation. Journal of Argumentation in Context 13:2 ► pp. 292 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel & Agnieszka Piskorska
2021. New developments in relevance theory. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve
2020. Pragmatique cognitive, argumentation et perlocution. Argumentation et analyse du discours 25 DOI logo
Oswald, Steve, Sara Greco, Johanna Miecznikowski, Chiara Pollaroli & Andrea Rocci
2020. Argumentation and meaning. Journal of Argumentation in Context 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve & Thierry Herman
2020. Give the Standard Treatment of Fallacies a Chance! Cognitive and Rhetorical Insights into Fallacy Processing. In From Argument Schemes to Argumentative Relations in the Wild [Argumentation Library, 35], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020. Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance. In Relevance Theory, Figuration and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8], ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Oswald, Steve, Thierry Herman & Jérôme Jacquin
2018. Introduction. In Argumentation and Language — Linguistic, Cognitive and Discursive Explorations [Argumentation Library, 32], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.