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
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
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

Cited by 5 other publications

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
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
Padilla Cruz, Manuel
2020. Chapter 3. Evidential participles and epistemic vigilance. In Relevance Theory, Figuration, and Continuity in Pragmatics [Figurative Thought and Language, 8], ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Padilla Cruz, Manuel & Agnieszka Piskorska
2021. New developments in relevance theory. Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2 ► pp. 223 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 april 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.